Why the war is worth fighting

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Sorry Bob, a so-called preëmptive strike is simply an aggressive attack through the mouth of a spin doctor.

Edit: and no, I didnt approve of it when GATO or the Legion tried it either.

Edited February 11, 2010 by Sigrun Vapneir

[Arthur Blair]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 12:52 PM' timestamp='1265892773' post='2174590']
'Totally uninvolved'? 'Without provocation'? You guys will never stop pushing that lie, huh. I'm interested to see how many of you will actually rise and post an outright explicit lie on the matter (Denial already dodged it in a previous thread): were C&G alliances involved (non-militarily at that time) in the raiding coalition before TOP/IRON/etc DoW'd?

And while we're about it: who was being lined up to counter TOP and IRON when they entered on a more expected front (probably Fark/SF)?

Everyone knows the answers to those questions ('yes' and 'C&G') and that makes 'totally uninvolved' simply false.

As for 'it's a new war', TOP stated in their DoW that it was as part of the coalition, and they've stated several times since that the plan was discussed in the coalition planning channels for the Polar side, and cleared by Grub himself[/quote]

So that time when TOP was mediating between NPO and OV, the NPO would have been entirely justified in hitting TOP? They were involved, after all... And again, it's now acceptable to you that we can attack anyone we want because they might defend their allies against us some day?

And yes, it is a new war. TOP said in their declaration that their main reason for attacking was that we are a threat. The polar thing was just a convenient excuse, by their own admission. The polar thing ended, so this is a new war. How does that not make sense to you?

[quote name='Continued']Arthur Blair, you have clearly gone off the deep end if you're talking about disbanding alliances for making a strategic mistake in a coalition war. But relating to your previous post, it is not about hitting TOP 'some time in the future' or 'one day'. You were in the coalition against them [i]at the time of the DoW[/i]. It's more as if NPO in Karma had engaged not just OV but also VE in order to get the war deployment advantage. Yes, it is a bad move (because people like C&G spin it so hard and scramble for the moral high ground when they were preparing for war anyway), but it is not out of the blue.

Don't get me wrong, I don't support the pre-emptive strike. It made it all too easy for you to claim this victim status and push for extended war and bad terms, as opposed to the white peace which the rest of the coalition agreed to, and for you to pull alliances like STA and Polar to the non-Polar side. But it does not mean that they are an existential threat and might hit you at any time out of the blue as you are claiming. It means that they want to make sure their coalition will win in a war into which they are dragged and took a poor choice in how they approached that.
[/quote]

As far as I understand the arguments, we are at fault for their actions. Conversely, they are at fault for our actions. They are despicable monsters for us disbanding them, it's true. They should all be EZI'd for what we do. It makes such beautiful sense. Doesn't it?

How exactly were they dragged into attacking us? Please explain that.

[Bob Janova]

Aggressive? Yes, unquestionably. Many attacks in this war have been aggressive, though, and those fronts had no issue peacing out when the core dispute was settled. A pre-emptive strike is aggressive, certainly, but it isn't on a 'totally uninvolved' alliance and it should not worry you for the future if you aren't joining enemy coalitions in the first place.

It's 'aggressive' like the day-3 Hegemony alliances in Karma, not 'aggressive' like the NPO in Karma, which is what some people are trying to paint it as.

Edit for AB:
TOP were not involved in Karma at that time, they were mediators. I notice you dodged the question about C&G being involved in the raiding coalition this time. That makes them more like say VE or Vanguard. I wouldn't go so far as to say 'entirely justified' (after all I think this pre-empt was a dumb move), but it would not have been a completely unjustified thing to do once the war was open.

[quote]And again, it's now acceptable to you that we can attack anyone we want because they might defend their allies against us some day?[/quote]
Can you at least read the post you're quoting? I already said: [i]"But relating to your previous post, it is not about hitting TOP 'some time in the future' or 'one day'. You were in the coalition against them at the time of the DoW"[/i].

[quote]The polar thing ended, so this is a new war. How does that not make sense to you?[/quote]
It makes sense, it's just false. For one thing, the TOP front was opened [i]before[/i] any other fronts agreed to peace, as well as the point you are ignoring that the strike was agreed in coalition channels and cleared by people on the other fronts.

TOP's DoW had two points. One is the one you keep banging on about, that they were happy to have an opportunity to hit C&G because you've been lining up against them for months. The other is an [b]explicit[/b] statement that they are entering as part of the Polar coalition.

Edited February 11, 2010 by Bob Janova

[junkahoolik]

[quote name='Arthur Blair' date='11 February 2010 - 01:08 PM' timestamp='1265886499' post='2174484']
And here we have reached the ultimate conclusion of these ridiculous accusations.

Now it is OUR fault that we didn't PLACATE TOP and IRON enough for them to not view us as a threat.



WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM US? SHALL WE PROSTATE OURSELVES IN FRONT OF YOU AND RAIN ETERNAL PRAISE ON YOUR FEET SO THAT YOU MAY SPARE US??



Really, this is ridiculous. I hope none of you ever get peace, you should all disband and die. Really, you're not worth it.
[/quote]

take a step back, let go of the emotions and reread what i wrote (hint, this is how all conflicts start [ooc]even in RL[/ooc])

[Mack Truck]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 10:52 PM' timestamp='1265892773' post='2174590']
'Totally uninvolved'? 'Without provocation'? You guys will never stop pushing that lie, huh. I'm interested to see how many of you will actually rise and post an outright explicit lie on the matter (Denial already dodged it in a previous thread): were C&G alliances involved (non-militarily at that time) in the raiding coalition before TOP/IRON/etc DoW'd?

And while we're about it: who was being lined up to counter TOP and IRON when they entered on a more expected front (probably Fark/SF)?

Everyone knows the answers to those questions ('yes' and 'C&G') and that makes 'totally uninvolved' simply false.[/quote]

We (MK) were lined up to counter TOOL for like a week in the TPF war. This time around...we were never told by gov. who we were going to counter. They told us to get ready but a target was never mentioned, and since we were only going to use treaties - thus the whole countering thing - I don't think we could have attacked TOP. From memory when us normal shrooms let our memories run wild we thought we might be countering IRON and that TOP would probably attack us then.

[quote]As for 'it's a new war', TOP stated in their DoW that it was as part of the coalition, and they've stated several times since that the plan was discussed in the coalition planning channels for the Polar side, and cleared by Grub himself[/quote]

I don't really care, but what TOP thinks is irrelevant to us. They can think they're fighting Napoleon for all it matters.

[quote]The League used them in GW2 (GATO) and 3 (Legion), although the hegemony of the day spun those into great injustices too.[/quote]

Did that make them acceptable? I'm guessing not, or else people wouldn't be discussing it. Nukes, for example, were an issue until post-NoCB, when people stopped talking about them.

[quote]Arthur Blair, you have clearly gone off the deep end if you're talking about disbanding alliances for making a strategic mistake in a coalition war. But relating to your previous post, it is not about hitting TOP 'some time in the future' or 'one day'. You were in the coalition against them [i]at the time of the DoW[/i]. [/quote]

So CnG was in a coalition against TOP and IRON despite the fact we weren't fighting anyone and they were in a coalition against us even though they weren't fighting anyone? It clearly was about hitting them "one day" because neither side was doing it at the time.

Edited February 11, 2010 by Mack Truck

[Arthur Blair]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 01:07 PM' timestamp='1265893646' post='2174603']
Edit for AB:
TOP were not involved in Karma at that time, they were mediators. I notice you dodged the question about C&G being involved in the raiding coalition this time. That makes them more like say VE or Vanguard. I wouldn't go so far as to say 'entirely justified' (after all I think this pre-empt was a dumb move), but it would not have been a completely unjustified thing to do once the war was open.[/quote]

Oh, if mediating is non-involvement then I'll say we were not involved. I should have been clearer about that.


[quote name='Continued']Can you at least read the post you're quoting? I already said: [i]"But relating to your previous post, it is not about hitting TOP 'some time in the future' or 'one day'. You were in the coalition against them at the time of the DoW"[/i].[/quote]

If telling everyone they're stupid and should quit in private is being involved, your previous point falls flat on it's face. You can't have it both ways. Unless you're saying that once they plan to attack our allies, we are in the coalition. But that is saying we are justified in attacking anyone because some day they might attack our allies...

[quote name='Continued']It makes sense, it's just false. For one thing, the TOP front was opened [i]before[/i] any other fronts agreed to peace, as well as the point you are ignoring that the strike was agreed in coalition channels and cleared by people on the other fronts.

TOP's DoW had two points. One is the one you keep banging on about, that they were happy to have an opportunity to hit C&G because you've been lining up against them for months. The other is an [b]explicit[/b] statement that they are entering as part of the Polar coalition.
[/quote]

I don't care what NpO tells TOP anywhere. It is entirely irrelevant to my bloc, neither of them are in it. I don't see how grub telling TOP it's fine to attack us makes it false.

I keep banging on about the second point of their DoW because the first is moot. If we post a DoW and cite a nonsensical reason, does it automatically justify our attack? For instance if we declare on VE in support of vanguard, we are justified because we made an explicit statement that we're on vanguard's side? Nevermind that there is no war going on between vanguard and VE. There was no war between polar and CnG.

[Ogaden]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 04:52 AM' timestamp='1265892773' post='2174590']
'Totally uninvolved'? 'Without provocation'? You guys will never stop pushing that lie, huh. I'm interested to see how many of you will actually rise and post an outright explicit lie on the matter (Denial already dodged it in a previous thread): were C&G alliances involved (non-militarily at that time) in the raiding coalition before TOP/IRON/etc DoW'd?

And while we're about it: who was being lined up to counter TOP and IRON when they entered on a more expected front (probably Fark/SF)?

Everyone knows the answers to those questions ('yes' and 'C&G') and that makes 'totally uninvolved' simply false.

As for 'it's a new war', TOP stated in their DoW that it was as part of the coalition, and they've stated several times since that the plan was discussed in the coalition planning channels for the Polar side, and cleared by Grub himself


The League used them in GW2 (GATO) and 3 (Legion), although the hegemony of the day spun those into great injustices too.

Arthur Blair, you have clearly gone off the deep end if you're talking about disbanding alliances for making a strategic mistake in a coalition war. But relating to your previous post, it is not about hitting TOP 'some time in the future' or 'one day'. You were in the coalition against them [i]at the time of the DoW[/i]. It's more as if NPO in Karma had engaged not just OV but also VE in order to get the war deployment advantage. Yes, it is a bad move (because people like C&G spin it so hard and scramble for the moral high ground when they were preparing for war anyway), but it is not out of the blue.

Don't get me wrong, I don't support the pre-emptive strike. It made it all too easy for you to claim this victim status and push for extended war and bad terms, as opposed to the white peace which the rest of the coalition agreed to, and for you to pull alliances like STA and Polar to the non-Polar side. But it does not mean that they are an existential threat and might hit you at any time out of the blue as you are claiming. It means that they want to make sure their coalition will win in a war into which they are dragged and took a poor choice in how they approached that.
[/quote]

Bob this is all well and good but what "preemptive" attacks show to me is a fundamental lack of respect for not only your own treaties (TOP and IRON honored none of theirs) but the entire concept of defense of allies. Despite citing defense of NpO as a reason to attack C&G, a party who due to conflicting treaties not only was not at war with NpO or any of their allies but in fact were unlikely to do so for the same reason. If they entered the war at all, it would be several treaty chains away from Polar. This disregard is highlighted most strongly by the fact that they were attacking NpO's direct treaty partners, which in probably the greatest irony of the war, ended up drawing NpO into war against them.

For most of the alliances on both sides of the war, they are there to fight for their friends or allies. You cannot say this of TOP and IRON's declaration against C&G, what friend or ally are they fighting for? Certainly not NSO, certainly not NpO, they were not under attack from C&G. This was a move that essentially said to the whole world that they don't care about treaties, or friends or allies, they only care about winning.

Edited February 11, 2010 by James Dahl

[Bob Janova]

[quote]So CnG was in a coalition against TOP and IRON despite the fact we weren't fighting anyone and they were in a coalition against us even though they weren't fighting anyone?[/quote]
Yes! I'm glad someone gets it . Both TOP/IRON and C&G were part of the planning and support for their respective coalitions before war was declared. Saying otherwise is like saying that TOP were not involved in the Coincidence Coalition because they didn't DoW.

[quote]Oh, if mediating is non-involvement then I'll say we were not involved[/quote]
Mediating is not involvement, but planning and logistical support it. TOP in Karma were not in the coalition channels, on the Karma forums or arranging aid (at the time at least).

[quote]For instance if we declare on VE in support of vanguard, we are justified because we made an explicit statement that we're on vanguard's side?[/quote]
Vanguard is on the same side as VE, and VE is already engaged in the war, so this really isn't an analagous situation at all.

[quote]I don't care what NpO tells TOP anywhere. It is entirely irrelevant to my bloc, neither of them are in it. I don't see how grub telling TOP it's fine to attack us makes it false.[/quote]
You don't see that an operation being planned and discussed within the pre-existing war coalition makes it part of the same coalition war? Referring to the above, if you coordinated and planned that attack with Vanguard and the rest of C&G in the war planning rooms (unlikely as VE is on the same side as you and in those rooms ), it would not be a whole new war, just another front in the same one.

[quote]If they entered the war at all, it would be several treaty chains away from Polar.[/quote]
'Several treaty chains' didn't seem to bother the raiding coalition much earlier on – it's four chains from \m/ to your alliance for example.

[quote]For most of the alliances on both sides of the war, they are there to fight for their friends or allies. You cannot say this of TOP and IRON's declaration against C&G, what friend or ally are they fighting for?[/quote]
For NSO, essentially – they entered the war on the Polar side because NSO (IRON's ally) was on Polar's side.

[quote]This disregard is highlighted most strongly by the fact that they were attacking NpO's direct treaty partners, which in probably the greatest irony of the war, ended up drawing NpO into war against them.[/quote]
Those treaty partners had already chosen their side very clearly, were lined up against NpO and it is only because of the unexpected peace on the other fronts and very dirty backroom politics that Polar have been dragged onto the non-Polar side. Although as I've said many times, the pre-emptive strike on all C&G was a silly way to go about opening the front, because it allows such dirty political moves.

[Drostan]

I like that the Grandmaster of TOP is saying they DoW'd because they knew that CnG was an upcoming power they'd have to deal with eventually, but Bob Janova still takes the burden upon himself to rewrite their motivations in every open discussion.

You know, some people enter into those planning channels still undecided, and there are multiple levels of channels pursuant to the level of involvement of each alliance. And how do you know which channels CnG members were in? Were you spying, Bob? lol. Or maybe you just accepted information.

This is all crap.

TOP declared war, maybe that war would have happened or maybe not, but it's happening now. TOP delcared this war because they felt CnG would displace them from their lofty position. They rolled the dice, and now we are waiting to see how it turns out. They are still the aggressors here, and CnG doesn't owe them anything.

[Arthur Blair]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 02:50 PM' timestamp='1265899831' post='2174745']
Yes! I'm glad someone gets it . Both TOP/IRON and C&G were part of the planning and support for their respective coalitions before war was declared. Saying otherwise is like saying that TOP were not involved in the Coincidence Coalition because they didn't DoW.


Mediating is not involvement, but planning and logistical support it. TOP in Karma were not in the coalition channels, on the Karma forums or arranging aid (at the time at least).[/quote]

What CnG alliances planned what? What logistical support did CnG alliances provide?


[quote name='Continued']Vanguard is on the same side as VE, and VE is already engaged in the war, so this really isn't an analagous situation at all.


You don't see that an operation being planned and discussed within the pre-existing war coalition makes it part of the same coalition war? Referring to the above, if you coordinated and planned that attack with Vanguard and the rest of C&G in the war planning rooms (unlikely as VE is on the same side as you and in those rooms ), it would not be a whole new war, just another front in the same one.[/quote]

Again I'm sorry for not being clear, I make far too many assumptions about how people read what I say. How about if VE was uninvolved with treaties on both sides and all we had to go on was your pro-TOP posts? Would it then be analogous enough? Would we be right in assuming VE would declare on us if we attacked their allies? Would that give us the right to attack them first? Would we be any more right if we said we were defending vanguard, who was not at war with VE?

As I see it, no matter who we discussed what with where, we would still be attacking VE aggressively with a very weak CB and if they could pull it off they would have every right to beat us down and do whatever it takes to eradicate us as the threat we would be.

[quote name='Continued']Those treaty partners had already chosen their side very clearly, were lined up against NpO and it is only because of the unexpected peace on the other fronts and very dirty backroom politics that Polar have been dragged onto the non-Polar side. Although as I've said many times, the pre-emptive strike on all C&G was a silly way to go about opening the front, because it allows such dirty political moves.
[/quote]

Yeah I remember when we watched the polar - \m/ war and said "wow \m/ is so right polar must die now". Except it didn't happen and unless you have some proof of that you really should stop claiming that as fact.

There were no dirty backroom politics to get polar on our side. Again, do you have any proof?

Your arguments seem to be based on your own assumptions about what we were planning to do. I have no idea how it would play out if the TOP coalition hadn't attacked us and I'm not pretentious enough to claim I know. We may well have been engaged against TOP defending one of our allies, we may well have NOT.

TOP took that [i]possible[/i] war and turned it into stark [i]reality[/i]. It didn't have to be this way, but they made some very bold moves to ensure it did.

[avernite]

[quote name='Drostan' date='11 February 2010 - 04:54 PM' timestamp='1265903673' post='2174813']
TOP declared war, maybe that war would have happened or maybe not, but it's happening now. TOP delcared this war because they felt CnG would displace them from their lofty position. They rolled the dice, and now we are waiting to see how it turns out. They are still the aggressors here, and CnG doesn't owe them anything.
[/quote]

That part, however, is not true; TOP did not declare war because we feared we would be displaced from our 'lofty position' (if anything, being nr 1 is a burden).

TOP declared war because it was our belief that this war was going to happen anyway due to various moves since at least Athens' techraid on KoN, so we might as well choose the time and place of the fighting.
That this belief was mistaken, or that we went about this in the wrong way, does not change the initial motivation.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]What CnG alliances planned what? What logistical support did CnG alliances provide?[/quote]
If you expect log dumps you're going to be disappointed. You can ask your government whether they were involved in the raiding coalition and in what capacity.

[quote]How about if VE was uninvolved with treaties on both sides and all we had to go on was your pro-TOP posts?[/quote]
That is still not analagous. You were not uninvolved and you had clearly shown no interest in your Polar-side treaties (C&G as a whole).

[quote]TOP took that possible war and turned it into stark reality. It didn't have to be this way, but they made some very bold moves to ensure it did. [/quote]
That is true, but (barring the miraculous instant peace) the war was, at least, extremely likely to have C&G countering TOP.

[quote]TOP declared war, maybe that war would have happened or maybe not, but it's happening now.[/quote]
The war was happening already.

[quote]There were no dirty backroom politics to get polar on our side. Again, do you have any proof?[/quote]
The proof of that one is public: NpO declared on the non-Polar side. Telling an alliance that you require their MDP assistance when they're already engaged on the opposite side [i]is[/i] dirty backroom politics par excellence. NpO is just more legally honourable than NPO during BLEU war (when STA tried to invoke their MADP).

[bzelger]

Just for the record, the STA only had a straight MDP with the NPO. The only MADP we've ever held was with the NpO, and that just briefly. The point is still valid though.


Edit: and by the point I mean only that NPO was obligated to defend the STA and didn't. I haven't really been following the rest and have no public comment at this time.

Edited February 11, 2010 by bzelger

[Bob Janova]

Oh, my mistake, but yeah, that doesn't really affect the point. I must have been thinking of Echelon or someone with the MADP.

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='avernite' date='10 February 2010 - 10:41 AM' timestamp='1265816472' post='2172646']
Since forever, notable examples being the first Polar War if I heard it right, in some sense GW1, GOONS-Fark (IE GW2), Legion in GW3, WoTC...
[/quote]

...it wasn't acceptable in any of those situations at all. Pre-emptive strikes have [i]always[/i] been looked down upon, and those situations your brought up back up the fact.

[TehChron]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' date='11 February 2010 - 08:31 PM' timestamp='1265920319' post='2175410']
...it wasn't acceptable in any of those situations at all. Pre-emptive strikes have [i]always[/i] been looked down upon, and those situations your brought up back up the fact.
[/quote]
I don't recall the mass outrage over GOONs attack on Fark. Or whomever it was.

I do remember you folks stepping in with a secret treaty and getting yourselves killed, though.

[Ogaden]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 06:50 AM' timestamp='1265899831' post='2174745']
For NSO, essentially – they entered the war on the Polar side because NSO (IRON's ally) was on Polar's side.
[/quote]

Bob, if TOP and IRON wanted to defend NSO they would have attacked GOD.
C&G was not attacking NSO.

This is where this whole line of argument falls flat on it's face.

The irony of course is that TOP and IRON probably would have done better against SF than C&G, we're not as top heavy.

Edited February 11, 2010 by James Dahl

[Bob Janova]

You'd have to ask someone in the Polar coalition (probably TOP/IRON) why they picked C&G, but you can relieve pressure on an alliance in ways other than directly hitting the alliance that is attacking it. GOD wasn't a major pressure on NSO (they only had 30 wars, mostly expired or almost expired by the time of TOP/IRON's entry), and were assigned to Polar; deploying IRON or TOP there would have been a restrictive waste.

I wouldn't have deployed on C&G, for sure. But war is not so limited as just attacking alliances on the other side that are directly at war with your friend.

[Lord Brendan]

Fark would have been the logical target.

[TehChron]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='12 February 2010 - 12:58 AM' timestamp='1265936313' post='2175975']
Fark would have been the logical target.
[/quote]
It's nice we agree on that count.

[Denial]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 10:22 PM' timestamp='1265892773' post='2174590']
'Totally uninvolved'? 'Without provocation'? You guys will never stop pushing that lie, huh. I'm interested to see how many of you will actually rise and post an outright explicit lie on the matter (Denial already dodged it in a previous thread): were C&G alliances involved (non-militarily at that time) in the raiding coalition before TOP/IRON/etc DoW'd?

And while we're about it: who was being lined up to counter TOP and IRON when they entered on a more expected front (probably Fark/SF)?

Everyone knows the answers to those questions ('yes' and 'C&G') and that makes 'totally uninvolved' simply false.[/quote]
If everyone "knows the answers" then where is the evidence? You yourself have stated there is no available evidence to back up this claim, as well as openly admitting you are running your mouth without possessing one scrap of concrete proof. The fact that Complaints & Grievances were entirely uninvolved, in both political and military terms, is incontrovertible. There was no provocation on the part of Complaints & Grievances - TOP and IRON leadership have stated, on the record, that their declaration of war was based upon 'belief', intuition and forum criticism rather than any factual affirmation of their paranoia. Further, simply because I did not state the erroneous answer you are searching for does not mean I have "dodged" the question. I have already given you an answer; Complaints & Grievances signatories were speaking to their allies on [i]both[/i] sides of the conflict, with no set plans for military involvement. There were no declarations of war, or even declarations of support, from Complaints & Grievances. As I have mentioned previously, the only occasion where TOP and IRON had to be wary of a C&G counter-attack is if they directly attacked an ally, which should be no surprise to anyone.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 10:22 PM' timestamp='1265892773' post='2174590']
As for 'it's a new war', TOP stated in their DoW that it was as part of the coalition, and they've stated several times since that the plan was discussed in the coalition planning channels for the Polar side, and cleared by Grub himself[/quote]
Right, because everything stated in a declaration of war should be immediately considered factually accurate. TOP can state whatever they wish in their declarations of war; it will be the general public and the defending alliances that will determine whether those statements are valid. How can aggressively attacking an entirely unvinvolved bloc - with TOP and IRON themselves being previously militarily uninvolved in the NpO-\m/ war, also - be perceived as establishing themselves as part of a pre-existing coalition? By very definition, that is creating an entirely new war. Increasingly, you are coming across as a slightly more verbose version of all those hordes that would mindlessly hail every aggressive action One Vision and The Continuum would make at the height of the Hegemony.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 10:22 PM' timestamp='1265892773' post='2174590']
The League used them in GW2 (GATO) and 3 (Legion), although the hegemony of the day spun those into great injustices too.[/quote]
Because comparing TOP to alliances like Great War-era GATO and The Legion will certainly vindicate their actions Those were ridiculous moves taken then, and they're just as idiotic now. We'll ignore the fact they're also like comparing apples and oranges - GATO declared on the entirety of a bloc, a bloc where a number of the signatories were already involved (a terrible move, but if Initiative signatories were honouring their treaty, they would obviously become involved in the Second Great War), whereas not a single signatory of Complaints & Grievances was in any way active in the recently concluded NpO-\m/ war.


[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 10:22 PM' timestamp='1265892773' post='2174590']
Arthur Blair, you have clearly gone off the deep end if you're talking about disbanding alliances for making a strategic mistake in a coalition war. But relating to your previous post, it is not about hitting TOP 'some time in the future' or 'one day'. You were in the coalition against them [i]at the time of the DoW[/i].[/quote]
No, we weren't. If Complaints & Grievances had decided to place ourselves as the figurehead or spokesperson for the \m/ coalition, despite it having very little to do with us, exactly as TOP did in the TPF War, then you may have had a point. I'll take this opportunity, once more, to ask for some evidence to back up all these baseless accusations you are spewing all over the forum.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 10:22 PM' timestamp='1265892773' post='2174590']
It's more as if NPO in Karma had engaged not just OV but also VE in order to get the war deployment advantage. Yes, it is a bad move (because people like C&G spin it so hard and scramble for the moral high ground when they were preparing for war anyway), but it is not out of the blue.[/quote]
I can guarantee you would have been frothing at the mouth with criticism of the New Pacific Order if they had the TOP-like audacity to attack not only Ordo Verde without a casus belli, but also its direct allies in GOD, Vanguard and Viridian Entente. It appears as if what many Pacificans say about you is correct; your morals and standards of behaviour required of others changes dependent on alliance affiliation.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 10:22 PM' timestamp='1265892773' post='2174590']
Don't get me wrong, I don't support the pre-emptive strike.[/quote]
Fantastic, neither do we. Hence, the ongoing war.


[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 10:22 PM' timestamp='1265892773' post='2174590']
It made it all too easy for you to claim this victim status and push for extended war and bad terms, as opposed to the white peace which the rest of the coalition agreed to, and for you to pull alliances like STA and Polar to the non-Polar side.[/quote]
That was rather easy, considering there is no "non-Polar side" in the TOP+IRON/C&G conflict.


[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 10:22 PM' timestamp='1265892773' post='2174590']
But it does not mean that they are an existential threat and might hit you at any time out of the blue as you are claiming. It means that they want to make sure their coalition will win in a war into which they are dragged and took a poor choice in how they approached that.[/quote]
Firstly, not once in the past months have TOP been dragged in to anything. They have been at the forefront of potential military conflicts by their own volition, to satiate their own bloodlust. Two perfect examples are TOP's coalition leadership in the TPF War, despite having no reason whatsoever to be involved, and their most recent and heinous display of belligerence - attacking an entire bloc without reason or provocation. And actually, yes, TOP and IRON's attacks [i]do[/i] indicate that they are likely to attack us again out of the blue. I mean, that's [i]exactly[/i] what they did just over a week ago.

[Bob Janova]

Oh Denial, you are unbelievable.

[quote]the only occasion where TOP and IRON had to be wary of a C&G counter-attack is if they directly attacked an ally, which should be no surprise to anyone.[/quote]
C&G allies cover pretty much the whole of the raiding coalition (although ironically, not Fark). Considering the number of non-mandatory entrances on the raiding side already, I don't believe that only a mandatory MDP activation would have brought you in anyway. TOP and IRON would have destroyed SF and C&G have several links there; FoB were already lining up to follow in PC (with several senior members ghosting PC when they were held back, presumably by C&G).

[quote]The fact that Complaints & Grievances were entirely uninvolved, in both political and military terms, is incontrovertible[/quote]
no u

It's really not true, but as I say, I'm not going to drop logs or other material that would be a breach of confidence to win an argument for the peanut gallery. As a senior member of C&G though, you must know that this is untrue.

[quote]I can guarantee you would have been frothing at the mouth with criticism of the New Pacific Order if they had the TOP-like audacity to attack not only Ordo Verde without a casus belli, but also its direct allies in GOD, Vanguard and Viridian Entente.[/quote]
Yes – because of attacking without a CB. You may recall me being rather opposed to the NPO attack on OV at the time. That is not the same thing as entering a war as part of a coalition. A better example might be TORN, who you will recall did get to peace out very early in Karma after coming in aggressively, but even then they were one of the primary aggressors.

Also, I have been highly critical of the pre-emptive strike from the beginning, although apparently not frothily enough for you. That doesn't mean that just because TOP and IRON did something wrong, C&G are free from criticism.

[quote]That was rather easy, considering there is no "non-Polar side" in the TOP+IRON/C&G conflict.[/quote]
Let me paint a picture for you. The world is engulfed by war, with the Polar sphere fighting an ever-growing coalition of Superfriends and C&G allies (with strong rhetorical support from C&G). IRON's allies NSO (and various friends in ex-Hegemony) are surrounded on all sides by attackers. The only major militarily uninvolved powers remaining to deploy are TOP/IRON and C&G. It's obvious to everyone which side they will fall, particularly when the rumour mill leaks it: TOP/IRON and remaining ex-Hegemony alliances to the Polar side, C&G to the raiding side. TOP and IRON decide to cut the middleman and hit the opposition reserves first, clearing it with the Polar coalition, and declare on C&G, as part of the coalition including NSO.

Sure, 40 minutes later the rolling out of peace and isolation of TOP/IRON begins. (At that point all the fronts should have been peaced out, since the core dispute of the war was over.) But that's irrelevant since it happened [b]after[/b] TOP and IRON declared.

And even you pushers of the 'new war' line can't claim what you are claiming here with a straight face, since NpO re-entered in support of NSO anyway.

[quote]Two perfect examples are TOP's coalition leadership in the TPF War, despite having no reason whatsoever to be involved, and their most recent and heinous display of belligerence - attacking an entire bloc without reason or provocation[/quote]
(ii): lol. You're really getting the rhetorical flourishes out today. I suppose you think that by blustering with big words you'll make your side look more moral, or something.
(i): IRON were a directly mandated defensive partner of the primary target in that war. TOP had far more reason to be involved there than for example R&R have to be involved in this war – in fact only PC has the same level of involvement in this war that TOP had in the TPF one.

I appreciate that twisting facts is your favoured approach to winning an argument but you should at least keep off ones that can easily be debunked through public records and a mild application of logic.

[Jack Diorno]

Bob Janova why don't you go and join TOP instead of trying to convince C&G members we deserve to be attacked for no reason?

[Alterego]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='11 February 2010 - 12:08 AM' timestamp='1265846906' post='2173445']
This is how paranoid people are.

Well done, TOP and allies. Paranoia =/= a valid reason for war. Jesus. If you had justification for your paranoid, aka some form of logs of our leadership discussing murdering you in the future, and not just the post of various regular members, I'd understand.

Stop being so wrapped up in your belief that everyone wants you dead, because guess what? When you start thinking things like that, you put yourself in a position to be killed.
[/quote]
Over 6 months of threats and attempts to have us rolled tend to give people that idea. Its not why we entered this war btw, this thread is about why its worth fighting and winning. Not being a stickmen/C&G slave for the next year is another good reason.

[quote name='Denial' date='11 February 2010 - 01:00 AM' timestamp='1265850017' post='2173515']
because BAPS are so strategically important that we'd orchestrate another potential global war just to strike you down.
[/quote]
Beat downs arent always strategic sometimes you just dont like someone and decide to beat them down. 3 months from now purple would have been isolated and easy pickings against a 100m NS group.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Alterego

[Zero-One]

[quote name='Jack Diorno' date='12 February 2010 - 07:50 AM' timestamp='1265982635' post='2177518']
Bob Janova why don't you go and join TOP instead of trying to convince C&G members we deserve to be attacked for no reason?
[/quote]
Are you recruiting a Viridian Entente's nation for us? How nice of you, Jack.

How about you join in the discussion, intelligently, instead of mindless statements that have zero substance on the topic.

How many time does Bob Janova have to repeat himself only to have you mindless hyenas ignoring everything he said only to repeat yourself?

Mindless hyenas: lawlz C&G is completely innocent bystanders and TOP attacked us for no reason!!
Bob: It is not true. Those in charge with C&G know DAMN well I'm right.
C&G leadership: ........
Mindless hyenas: lawlz C&G is completely innocent bystanders and TOP attacked us for no reason!!