Why the war is worth fighting

[Ogaden]

Virtually everyone involved in this war has been drawn into the conflict due to treaty obligations, with the sole disputable attack on C&G by IRON and TOP. In deep irony, even the instigator of the war is now in the defensive-treaty-activation category. This post isn't about that though, this post is about why this war is worth fighting.

Ever since the first crumbling bits of mortar started flaking off the edifice of the Continuum in late 2008, our world has become a more open and more free place. This is indisputable, and is indeed the cause of this war. This war is the first major test of the world's newly-earned freedoms, it asks the question: can members of an alliance truly say or do what they like in the privacy of their own channel?

The war's spark was stupid, but this question is important, and this war will determine the outcome of our world's most basic freedom, the [b]Freedom To[/b] unrestrained expression.

Another important question, equally important to our opponents, lies their most treasured freedom, the [b]Freedom From[/b] actions or words they deem repellent, and the right to punish infringement upon that freedom.

My friends, my allies, let us not abandon that which we have won at such cost, for that is surely the goal of our opponents.

Edited February 9, 2010 by James Dahl

[Mergerberger II]

I must come out and say that I believe there are currently two different wars that just happened.

One was the NpO-\m/ war that ended. The second was/is the TOP-CnG war that is ongoing.

So [i]this[/i] war is not really worth fighting for any of those reasons. If you're on TOP's side, it's worth fighting to destroy CnG and vice versa. If you're NpO, well then God knows what it's for.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Mergerberger II

[Dontasemebro]

Except the NpO \m/ war ended, the CB was apologized for, and the TOP war was started because TOP feels CnG is a threat and will take any and every chance to attack them. That is why we are fighting.

[The AUT]

The goal of your opponents right now is to stand up to fight for the right to do things that you might not like, "this bright hot light, this strong sunlight we're under."

So you may say as you wish, yet we cannot do as we wish when we answer your calls of mockery. Its met with vows of disbandment and more mockery. This is the side you fight for.

[Ogaden]

TOP and IRON attacked C&G for the same reason NpO attacked \m/, because of things they said.

[Mergerberger II]

[quote name='James Dahl' date='09 February 2010 - 12:13 AM' timestamp='1265692381' post='2169917']
TOP and IRON attacked C&G for the same reason NpO attacked \m/, because of things they said.
[/quote]

I believe the CB was a preemptive strike, not retaliation for consistent racist and crude comments.

[Ogaden]

[quote name='Mergerberger II' date='08 February 2010 - 09:14 PM' timestamp='1265692456' post='2169921']
I believe the CB was a preemptive strike, not retaliation for consistent racist and crude comments.
[/quote]

That was what they cited as a Causus Belli, yes, though they had the courtesy to cite their actual reasons in later sentences.

Edited February 9, 2010 by James Dahl

[Sephiroth]

If C&G wanted to show everyone TOP had nothing to fear from them they could offer very light terms or white peace, by demanding harsh terms they just prove TOP right.

[Zero-One]

[quote name='Dontasemebro' date='08 February 2010 - 11:09 PM' timestamp='1265692175' post='2169892']
Except the NpO \m/ war ended, the CB was apologized for, and the TOP war was started because TOP feels CnG is a threat and will take any and every chance to attack them. That is why we are fighting.
[/quote]
Uh what? Shove your rhetoric aside. This has been discussed many may time. This is also not the topic of the OP, so I will not waste my time.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Zero-One

[Ogaden]

[quote name='Methrage' date='08 February 2010 - 09:24 PM' timestamp='1265693055' post='2169955']
If C&G wanted to show everyone TOP had nothing to fear from them they could offer very light terms or white peace, by demanding harsh terms they just prove TOP right.
[/quote]

Let me ask you something, if SF went collectively insane and attacked TOP and IRON "pre-emptively", what terms would you offer us?

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='James Dahl' date='09 February 2010 - 12:26 AM' timestamp='1265693187' post='2169967']
Let me ask you something, if SF went collectively insane and attacked TOP and IRON "pre-emptively", what terms would you offer us?
[/quote]
White peace as long as you give them white peace as well.

[Zero-One]

[quote name='James Dahl' date='08 February 2010 - 11:26 PM' timestamp='1265693187' post='2169967']
Let me ask you something, if SF went collectively insane and attacked TOP and IRON "pre-emptively", what terms would you offer us?
[/quote]
Highly unlikely scenario. However, if that was the case, most likely, we fight until SF gave up, then all parties pack up and go home. They pose no threats to us.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Zero-One

[Jens of the desert]

Took you a worryingly long time to figure out, but good for you James.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='James Dahl' date='08 February 2010 - 11:26 PM' timestamp='1265693187' post='2169967']
Let me ask you something, if SF went collectively insane and attacked TOP and IRON "pre-emptively", what terms would you offer us?
[/quote]
We'd fight it out because it'd be an awesome war and then after awhile we'd both walk away.

I don't see the point in this question since I highly doubt you will believe any answer we give you.

[Neo Uruk]

[quote name='Mergerberger II' date='08 February 2010 - 11:09 PM' timestamp='1265692173' post='2169890']
I must come out and say that I believe there are currently two different wars that just happened.

One was the NpO-\m/ war that ended. The second was/is the TOP-CnG war that is ongoing.

So [i]this[/i] war is not really worth fighting for any of those reasons. If you're on TOP's side, it's worth fighting to destroy CnG and vice versa. If you're NpO, well then God knows what it's for.
[/quote]
Didn't Grub come out and say this is the exact same war?

Also, the principles still apply. CnG is fighting for the freedom to free speech, while TOP is fighting for freedom from hateful words of CnG members.

[Mack Truck]

[quote name='Methrage' date='09 February 2010 - 03:24 PM' timestamp='1265693055' post='2169955']
If C&G wanted to show everyone TOP had nothing to fear from them they could offer very light terms or white peace, by demanding harsh terms they just prove TOP right.
[/quote]

No, us attacking them would've proved them right. They attacked us and allowing them to rebuild back to where they were is understandably not looked on favourably by us.

[Ogaden]

[quote name='Zero-One' date='08 February 2010 - 09:28 PM' timestamp='1265693280' post='2169971']
Highly unlikely scenario. However, if that was the case, most likely, we fight until SF gave up, then all parties pack up and go home. They pose no threats to us.
[/quote]

I believe the appropriate response to your claim is "LOL"

[Caesius]

[quote name='Methrage' date='09 February 2010 - 12:24 AM' timestamp='1265693055' post='2169955']
If C&G wanted to show everyone TOP had nothing to fear from them they could offer very light terms or white peace, by demanding harsh terms they just prove TOP right.
[/quote]

TOP and IRON have proven that C&G have something to fear from them, as they are willing to strike C&G when they have no treaty ties to those whom C&G fight (or in this case, [i]could[/i] fight). TOP and IRON attacked C&G even while C&G was going the diplomatic route before turning to war. I think it's obvious TOP and IRON had no intention of letting the conflict resolve itself and jumped at the opportunity to escalate the war in order to gain an advantage over C&G.

Given this, why should C&G try to show TOP and IRON that they have nothing to fear from us, when we have something to fear of them? So they won't come after us for revenge? Perhaps they will still come after us because they will perceive us as "soft" for offering light terms.

TOP and IRON attacked us due to a perceived threat which was an exaggeration of the real threat C&G posed to them. They attacked us under the assumption that we would do the same thing in their position; that is, take advantage of unrelated conflicts as a cover for an unprovoked first strike. I doubt that assumption will go away just because we give them light terms; they may well see light terms as a ploy to pacify them -- which is exactly what they would be, since you can't possibly expect C&G to care as much about "proving TOP right" as "keeping TOP down." Then they would pretend to be taken in by this ploy, while still waiting for another chance to take us down.

We sure aren't going to give anything near what the old Hegemony traditionally gave to its opponents, but I doubt light reps are going to happen. We will probably be giving something in between -- firm, but honest and fair.


(note that this is my opinion, not necessarily that of ODN or C&G)

[junkahoolik]

[quote name='Mack Truck' date='09 February 2010 - 07:37 AM' timestamp='1265693831' post='2169998']
No, us attacking them would've proved them right. They attacked us and allowing them to rebuild back to where they were is understandably not looked on favourably by us.
[/quote]

No, CnG attacking TPF (well, Athens and RoK at least but let's face it... they wouldn't have attacked without promise of aid), Londo's words from the IRON DOW, ODN's attitude towards IRON, and basically the attitude of CnG towards TOP and IRON during this last year or so prove that the preemptive strike was warranted for. you sir are just victimizing to gather some PR points.

[Zero-One]

[quote name='James Dahl' date='08 February 2010 - 11:39 PM' timestamp='1265693976' post='2170006']
I believe the appropriate response to your claim is "LOL"
[/quote]
Note the post by Feanor above. Why ask question when you refuse to partake in an intellectual discussion? Worse, you refuse to believe any reply that doesn't fit your agenda. Instead, you resorted to the typical tactic of "NOU!!!" What's the point?

[Mack Truck]

[quote name='junkahoolik' date='09 February 2010 - 03:51 PM' timestamp='1265694687' post='2170053']
No, CnG attacking TPF (well, Athens and RoK at least but let's face it... they wouldn't have attacked without promise of aid),[/quote]

Still with the conspiracy. The war wasn't started just to get at TOP and IRON.

[quote]Londo's words from the IRON DOW, ODN's attitude towards IRON, and basically the attitude of CnG towards TOP and IRON during this last year or so prove that the preemptive strike was warranted for. you sir are just victimizing to gather some PR points.
[/quote]

So it was over our attitude? The NPO could have attacked MK at anytime they had wanted then, rather than waiting for a CB. Apply it to anyone with a grudge, really, and there are plenty of grudges in the game.

Of course the negative attitude was there but that's hardly a solid CB. Not that I'm complaining.

[Caesius]

[quote name='junkahoolik' date='09 February 2010 - 12:51 AM' timestamp='1265694687' post='2170053']
No, CnG attacking TPF (well, Athens and RoK at least but let's face it... they wouldn't have attacked without promise of aid), Londo's words from the IRON DOW, ODN's attitude towards IRON, and basically the attitude of CnG towards TOP and IRON during this last year or so prove that the preemptive strike was warranted for. you sir are just victimizing to gather some PR points.
[/quote]

You speak like C&G is the root of every problem TOP and IRON have faced in the last year and that none of these problems were possibly their own doing.


Case in point: IRON could have easily repaired relations with ODN somewhat by opening their embassy. The fact that they didn't meant they had no intentions of improving relations with us and their number one priority was to see us burn. Then when we make it our FA policy to isolate them they play the victim and blame us for the hostile relations. Isolating IRON was a defensive, not offensive reaction.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Caesius

[Ogaden]

[quote name='Zero-One' date='08 February 2010 - 09:54 PM' timestamp='1265694899' post='2170068']
Note the post by Feanor above. Why ask question when you refuse to partake in an intellectual discussion? Worse, you refuse to believe any reply that doesn't fit your agenda. Instead, you resorted to the typical tactic of "NOU!!!" What's the point?
[/quote]

Indeed, what would be the point?
I'm not terribly fond of debating other people's wishful thinking as though they were solid facts.

[Tomcat]

The OP is pretty much correct.

The IRON-TOP attack is a clear example of the IRON-TOP side's interest in trying to maintain the power and control they once had.

[Stetson76]

[quote name='Caesius' date='08 February 2010 - 11:57 PM' timestamp='1265695074' post='2170082']
Case in point: IRON could have easily repaired relations with ODN somewhat by opening their embassy. The fact that they didn't meant they had no intentions of improving relations with us and their number one priority was to see us burn. Then when we make it our FA policy to isolate them they play the victim and blame us for the hostile relations. Isolating IRON was a defensive, not offensive reaction.
[/quote]

So...you're saying that ODN who recently signed onto C&G was actively trying to isolate IRON, and yet TOP/IRON were paranoid about C&G's intentions...right...

But to the OP, your cry for freedom is some drowned out by the refusal of a number of alliances on your side of the conflict to recognize that by attacking nations in an AA, or making derogatory statements, they are impinging on the freedom of those they attack. You can't have it both ways. Either you respect freedom and don't grant those same rights to everyone, or don't expect your rights to be honored.

Everyone has a right to free speech, but no one can yell fire in a crowded theater if there isn't one. You can say whatever the heck you want in your private alliance channels, but in public i.e. anyone is free to join, common sense would say treat your guests and those who just wandered in with some small portion of respect. You can't claim freedom by taking it from someone else and that includes, tech, land, and the freedom to avoid being insulted and degraded.

Other than that, excellent propaganda speech.