a question of this war.

[shahenshah]

It seems here that the debate over aggressor/defender boils down to this: 
 
1.  Umbrella has a policy that they WILL attack anybody that signs it if they ever leave the AA after signing a specific pact.
2.  A signatory of the pact left Umbrella.  There doesn't seem to be any debate that he was attacking while using another Alliance Affiliation
3.  Said rogue nation (while on other AA) attacked 3 Anarchy Inc. nations.
4.  An initial failed stagger by Ai allowed the rogue to slip into peace mode. 
5.  Said rogue, in a very non-rogue like fashion, honored the terms of his pact, by slipping out of peace mode and informing Umbrella when he did so, allowing Umbrella to enforce the terms of said pact. 
6.  Both alliances believe that they should have been able to enforce their policies, and this is a war of Puppets war slots. 
 
Here's what it boils down to. 
 
-Ai & co. declared war on Umbrella, with no prior aggressive (debated) action by Umbrella.  This makes eQ, the coalition of Ai, the aggressive side in the conflict. 
-Who had right to those war slots, whether that was Umbrella's Internal Affairs or Anarchy Inc's Defensive departments is the contested issue in the CB.  An unhappy Ai brought the issue to Umbrella apparently, and got told to "do something about it". 
 
I think, that it is reasonable to believe, that both alliances had an inherent right to take those defensive policies, either due to previously written and announced doctrine (whether or not those announcement made the OWF or remained on Umbrella's forums, I don't know, and it doesn't really matter as they're an internal policy) on the part of Umbrella, or alliance norms that have been generally accepted by precedent on planet Bob.  What I believe, does not really matter. 
 
The nitty gritty on this is that Umbrella stuck their chins out and shouted "hit me" and "comeatmebro".  Umbrella has not denied this, and even acknowledges that as the issue played out, they wanted to put their tech to use as much as anybody on the other side wanted to test them on it.  But regardless of whether or not eQ was verbally challenged to get at it already, their decision to land that first decisive blow really kind of takes away the ability to cry out that they rushed Umbrella in self-defense, which seems to be the claim on the eQ side of this discussion. 
 
Hear me out on this eQuilibrium, cause I really want you to understand it.  Nobody really cares who is the aggressor and who is the defender.  If you shoot a guy you just caught in bed with your wife, and you shoot him... well, he didn't assault you, but you're not morally wrong.  There can be a good and well-thought out debate about who is morally right/wrong in this war, but the debate over who is the aggressor in this war is completely pointless, because nobody is debating the one thing that could possibly lead to such a debate, which would be if Puppets, when he declared on Ai, was acting under orders from Umbrella government, that he never actually left Umbrella, and that it was all a huge farce to put this war into play.  If that were true, then Umbrella would be the aggressor.  Umbrella would also be the aggressor if Puppets had been accepted as an Ai member prior to Umbrella launching attacks, and then the sovereignty of Umbrella's internal policies over Ai's right to defend their alliance could be the debate that we're having but none of that is the case. 
 
Was there slot filling taking place?  Admin says yes, Umbrella says "bad call".  Sure, it's a debatable point, if Umbrella were acting according to all previously stated policies by admin, then perhaps they weren't breaking any rules that were in the book.  Whether or not it's right, admin has the power to make decisions as they be by the letter of the law, by the spirit of the law, or as he feels the whim to see fit.  Had admin released a statement to the reasons for making the determination that Umbrella's actions were deemed to be war-slot filling, then we could have that debate, but alas we can't.  You can make the decision as to who's word to take for it, because, unless I'm mistaken, deleted wars are treated as though they never happened in the written histories.
 
eQ, please, for the sake of all things logical and right in the world, change the wording in your debate from "we are the defending coalition because _____" to "we are the morally just alliance in this war because ______" because you will be standing on much more solid ground, and you'll be having the debate that I think you already believe that you're having, and I think that Umbrella respondents also believe that you're having, but is not the debate you claim to be having.

You contradict yourself. Admin says 'yes', Umbrella calls it a 'bad call' as per your post, yet AI is the aggressive alliance. At-least be consistent. 
 
Sequence of events: Muppets leaves Umb hits Ai, Ai tells the world to lay off.  Muppets tells Umb about leaving PM and Umb slot fills (proven beyond doubt) Muppets within minutes. Umb is informed of people being extremely unhappy about it, they go around telling everyone publically 'do something about it'. Ai responds to the aggressive actions and talks from Umb. Umb welcomes the move with all the tough talk about 'finally you have the balls'. 1 month later, the script somehow changes in Umb and suddenly its 'we didnt do nothing aggressive, y you attack us?!'. Edited February 19, 2013 by shahenshah

[Ogaden]

 
Satisfied with what? Being the largest coalition ever to be an utter failure? That is what you will be unless you come up with some actual goals here. I've seen logs showing that some of your coalition members are far from satisfied...in fact they seem quite scared. 
 
@Alterego I saw a single admission by puppets that said HE orchestrated it.....how that makes the Umb members complicit is still a question to me. 

Haha what, are you serious?

[Banned]

You contradict yourself. Admin says 'yes', Umbrella calls it a 'bad call' as per your post, yet AI is the aggressive alliance. At-least be consistent. 
 
Sequence of events: Muppets leaves Umb hits Ai, Ai tells the world to lay off.  Muppets tells Umb about leaving PM and Umb slot fills (proven beyond doubt) Muppets within minutes. Umb is informed of people being extremely unhappy about it, they go around telling everyone publically 'do something about it'. Ai responds to the aggressive actions and talks from Umb. Umb welcomes the move with all the tough talk about 'finally you have the balls'. 1 month later, the script somehow changes in Umb and suddenly its 'we didnt do nothing aggressive, y you attack us?!'.

It's not really a contradiction.  I was pointing out that Umbrella contests that it was a bad call.  The point though is this:

 

Umbrella did not attack Ai directly.  Did Umbrella hand over a valid CB on a silver platter?  Sure.  They have not contested here that they didn't.  They taunted Ai to do something about it, and Ai did something about it.  There's nothing "morally" wrong with Ai's response.  However, it was not Umbrella that fired the first shot at Ai, but Ai that fired the first shot at Umbrella.  What happened to provoke that shot?  Plenty enough that Ai & co. felt that they had just cause to attack Umbrella.  Whether or not Ai's right to defend themselves from a rogue attack should trump Umbrella's internal policy, it could be debated, but the platform would be weak.  Sure, Umbrella should have said "yes Ai, we'll let you get your licks in first", which could have "maybe" prevented this war.  They didn't.  Umbrella wanted the war, and short of directly firing the first shot, gave Ai and co. all the "moral" ammunition they needed to start it, short of just directly attacking Ai and getting it going.  But taunting does not make one the aggressor, hitting does.  Puppets was not an Ai nation, so Ai's choice to attack in response to Umbrella's actions with Puppets makes Ai the aggressor in this case, despite the fact that it could be very well argued that Ai had the moral high ground here. 

 

That said, Ai is still the aggressor.  All that really means in this case, is that properly done, Ai's allies on the front declaration would have been those that shared an aggression clause in their treaties with Ai.  Those responding to the attacks on Umbrella would have been those holding treaties with a defensive clause.  Now, that rule doesn't stick for the entire war. 

 

Ex.  Alliance A attacks Alliance B

Alliance C uses defensive treaty with Alliance B to attack Alliance A

Alliance D uses defensive treaty with Alliance A to declare war on Alliance D

 

Individual alliances could be aggressors, defenders, or even both in this case as the war looms on.  However, the eQ coalition remains the aggressive coalition, as the original DoW calls in Ai's aggression treaties and Umbrella & co.'s response starts by activating defensive treaties. 

 

I'm really not sure how much more clear this can be made.  Was the CB valid?  Absolutely.  Does eQ hold the moral high ground as the aggressor?  It could be debated, but eQ would probably win that debate.  Is the eQ coalition one that can legitimately claim they are holding the role of the defender?  No, and any argument so far provided is a really weak one that fails to acknowledge the fact that despite the build-up, this war started when Ai & co. declared war on Umbrella and fired the first shots.  That DoW was the start point of this war, and anything before it was the build-up.

[Neo Uruk]

Haha what, are you serious?

What goal are you accomplishing by butchering the nations of your already fracturing coalition, for a cause that won't even lead to victory?

[Ogaden]

What goal are you accomplishing by butchering the nations of your already fracturing coalition, for a cause that won't even lead to victory?

Well we all know MK will put this down as a strategic victory on CN wiki, so we'll just have to contend ourselves with merely destroying your alliances. Our love for GOONS and MK and Umbrella is so strong and heartfelt that we will doubtless have great difficulty attacking them for months on end, but somehow our hearts will go on.

[Neo Uruk]

Well we all know MK will put this down as a strategic victory on CN wiki, so we'll just have to contend ourselves with merely destroying your alliances. Our love for GOONS and MK and Umbrella is so strong and heartfelt that we will doubtless have great difficulty attacking them for months on end, but somehow our hearts will go on.

I don't get it are you being sarcastic
You can't hit umbrella with nothing

[white majik]

I just want to state that the call on the part of the mods(who may or may not play this game, which means they may have benefited from the decision) was a shittastic call which we cant even appeal. SO to base any argument on the fact that the war was deleted is delusional at best. The call was made that we "were not inflicting maximum damage to the target" and that was called slot filling. We have proof that we were indeed hitting and nuking him so the call to delete the wars was bad at best. If that was the case I want every nation that is currently turtling to have that war deleted because they are not inflicting max damage. 

 

Aggression is subjective and at this point it doesnt even matter. It comes down to power. And im not even going to continue because it is pointless. Dont wanna get into a debate on what is just/unjust or moral/unmoral

[Baldr]

I don't get it are you being sarcastic
You can't hit umbrella with nothing

Umbrella has 65 nations. 52 of those are in anarchy. 8 are in peace mode to avoid getting rolled. The vast majority of umbrella nations are not so large that they are safe.

[lamuella]

Baldr, I think you are confusing being in anarchy with being in trouble.  If you're in a nuclear war, you're going to be in anarchy, it's pretty much a given.  Considering that Umbrella's average NS is 60k, it's also pretty much a given that almost every war they're in will be a nuclear one.

[Avakael]

suffice to say, then, that 52 of them have been nuked in the last 2-3 days.

[Alterego]

I think it's great that we've come to the point on this planet where people who spent the past few years running roughshod and threatening the entirety of its inhabitants debate the most inane details of an otherwise solid & justified war.

 

Order of wars by the defeated

 

1. Goading

2. War starts

3. Cheering and goading

4. Realisation you cant win

5. The elaywers go to work

6. elawyers give up their vain cause

7. They surrender/peace is achieved

8. The rewriting of history by the defeated begins

 

 

We are at step 5. How long it takes to get to step 6 depends how long Umbrella and DH elawyers try to weasel out of their admission of guilt and surrender. The longer they stall the more their allies bleed. Quality allies DH <_<

[Baldr]

Baldr, I think you are confusing being in anarchy with being in trouble.  If you're in a nuclear war, you're going to be in anarchy, it's pretty much a given.  Considering that Umbrella's average NS is 60k, it's also pretty much a given that almost every war they're in will be a nuclear one.

I simply pointed out facts that disprove the 'You can't hit umbrella with nothing' nonsense. They are clearly being hit. A look at their alliance chart would also verify it.

[Sardonic]

Well we all know MK will put this down as a strategic victory on CN wiki, so we'll just have to contend ourselves with merely destroying your alliances. Our love for GOONS and MK and Umbrella is so strong and heartfelt that we will doubtless have great difficulty attacking them for months on end, but somehow our hearts will go on.

Months on end?  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but in GOONS we have more offensive wars than defensive wars right now, and we're doing roughly double the amount of damage we're taking in our currently active wars.  Never even mind months from now, your coalition is not even doing the job now.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Sardonic

[Neo Uruk]

I simply pointed out facts that disprove the 'You can't hit umbrella with nothing' nonsense. They are clearly being hit. A look at their alliance chart would also verify it.

And months down the road when maybe 3 nations have the warchest to continue their war on umbrella?

[Avakael]

Months on end?  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but in GOONS we have more offensive wars than defensive wars right now, and we're doing roughly double the amount of damage we're taking in our currently active wars.  Never even mind months from now, your coalition is not even doing the job now.

 

The numbers of wars for GOONs in the last ASR were as follows;

 

Federation Of Armed Nations (6) & Goon Order of Oppression Negligence and Sadism (4)

LoSS (20) & Goon Order of Oppression Negligence and Sadism (61)

Guru Order (6) & Goon Order of Oppression Negligence and Sadism (2)

Anarchy Inc. (0) & Goon Order of Oppression Negligence and Sadism (16)

Fark (9) & Goon Order of Oppression Negligence and Sadism (8)

NATO (5) & Goon Order of Oppression Negligence and Sadism (2)
Goon Order of Oppression Negligence and Sadism (9) & North Atlantic Defense Coalition (11)
Goon Order of Oppression Negligence and Sadism (48) & Nuclear Proliferation League (66)

 

So basically LoSS's lower tier isn't even lifting, and AI isn't paying you any attention, and that's why you've got more offensive wars than defensive wars- despite the fact that on an alliance by alliance basis it's only the case 1/4 of the time.

 

As for doing roughly double the amount of damage- that's what tends to happen when you take a large number of nuclear nations between 35 and 20k NS, pulverize their infra, and then have them fight all the non-nuclear nations that are now in range. The strange ways that our planet works mean that you have a deceptively easy fight now, but only because you took a beating to even qualify for it. You are not damaging a relevant target in the grand scheme of the war, and I doubt you have an executable plan that will change this that doesn't involve removing your top surviving 30 from peace mode, which you are apparently unwilling to do. Therefore, the job, on our part, is already done. The rest of this war, on our part, is just putting up with the uninvited (and often inebriated) guests until AI and Umbrella have sorted things out.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Avakael

[Sardonic]

Well you know what they say: you get knocked down, but you get up again, and they'll never keep you down.

 

Also don't be so hard on yourselves, NPL is plenty relevant.

 

To us, anyway.

[Tick1]

Well you know what they say: you get knocked down, but you get up again, and they'll never keep you down.

 

Also don't be so hard on yourselves, NPL is plenty relevant.

 

To us, anyway.

 

I thought they saying went something more like this,

 

Atrocity never balances or rectifies the past. Atrocity merely arms the future for more atrocity.

[Baldr]

Months on end?  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but in GOONS we have more offensive wars than defensive wars right now, and we're doing roughly double the amount of damage we're taking in our currently active wars.  Never even mind months from now, your coalition is not even doing the job now.

 

Goons average NS is somewhere around 8,000.  As the war continues, I expect your side is going to completely own the 200 to 10,000 NS range, because we're sending so many of your allies down to join you.  Owning the lowest tier doesn't do you any good.  That's where nations go when they've been beat black and blue.

 

But it's hilarious that you are proud of it.

 

And months down the road when maybe 3 nations have the warchest to continue their war on umbrella?

 

I didn't say anything about months down the road, I responded to your nonsense about how Umbrella couldn't be hit.  They are being hit.

 

My guess is that three months down the road, if the war continues that long, that there will be a few Umbrella nations, the super-size ones, who are in good shape.  95% of Umbrella will be pretty much trashed.  The equilibrium side gets to rotate in and out of war, doing more or less normal collections, and it's not like Umbrella is the only alliance who has warchests. 

Edited February 19, 2013 by Baldr

[shahenshah]

Months on end?  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but in GOONS we have more offensive wars than defensive wars right now, and we're doing roughly double the amount of damage we're taking in our currently active wars.  Never even mind months from now, your coalition is not even doing the job now.

GOONS's damage output is certainly a very troubling matter for our coalition. 

[Do Not Fear Jazz]

So according to you guys, Co will get beat down to 800-10k NS, but it's impossible for your side to get beat down there as well?


I always wondered what it was like to be delusional.

[Sardonic]

GOONS's damage output is certainly a very troubling matter for our coalition. 

Suit yourselves, we're having a great amount of success ruining a lot of people's days.

[shahenshah]

Suit yourselves, we're having a great amount of success ruining a lot of people's days.

I do not doubt your success. 

[Baldr]

Suit yourselves, we're having a great amount of success ruining a lot of people's days.

 

Hey, go easy now.  One good war down there could do thousands of dollars in damages.

[Sardonic]

Hey, go easy now.  One good war down there could do thousands of dollars in damages.

Honestly, I think the emotional/mental damage we're causing is the most rewarding, see:

and many other examples.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Sardonic

[Krashnaia]

Hey, go easy now.  One good war down there could do thousands of dollars in damages.

 

Yeah, guys, you're gonna waste, say, two or three FA slots to rebuild the ghastly damage inflicted by GOONS. :popcorn:

 

Through, do you know what? Perhaps you could flood your lower tier with money and rocket their NS out of GOONS' range. :smug:

Edited February 19, 2013 by Krashnaia