Why the war is worth fighting

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='The Warrior' date='10 February 2010 - 11:52 AM' timestamp='1265820779' post='2172741']
You cannot just [i]overlook[/i] the Karma War. There is your retribution. In fact I believe that is what that whole war was about. By the time IRON left the Karma War we were subjected to some of the largest reparations, if not the largest, up to that point in cybernations history. Then of course once NPO left the war they were, but that's a different story.

IRON is not the same as it was in your examples. We do not believe in collecting reps and therefore we wouldn't and won't.
[/quote]
Without TOP to dig you out of peace negotiations, hopefully you'll never again be in a position to collect reps ever again.

[The Warrior]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='10 February 2010 - 09:51 PM' timestamp='1265838681' post='2173215']
Without TOP to dig you out of peace negotiations, hopefully you'll never again be in a position to collect reps ever again.
[/quote]

[quote name='The Warrior' date='10 February 2010 - 04:52 PM' timestamp='1265820779' post='2172741']
[b]We do not believe in collecting reps and therefore we wouldn't and won't.[/b]
[/quote]


Try reading next time.

[der_ko]

[quote name='avernite' date='09 February 2010 - 10:14 AM' timestamp='1265706867' post='2170337']
I would just like to ask:

Is there actually a BETTER CB than 'we are going to fight some day soon, with both of us doing our best to make that happen in the best possible circumstances'?
[/quote]
We know you will attack us again in the future if you get the chance. I'm glad you agree we are justified in prolonging the war until we are satisfied you are no longer capable of attacking us again.

[Arthur Blair]

[quote name='Buds The Man' date='09 February 2010 - 06:00 PM' timestamp='1265738440' post='2170823']
Look this fight isnt about Freedome from or Freedom To: there are grudges on both sides and to deny it is assinine. To continually play the victim that my side is trying to ruin the game is BS. We have seen what happens when to much freedom is granted 30-50 people at a time become the victim there is a happy medium and as some one who supports tech raiding I believe it can be found. Had Grub not peaced out as he was forced to do the point of the pre empt would be moot. The only reason this war continues is because C&G have the advantage and will continue to try and beat the hell out of us all. Im no mind reader as to what terms will be or if WP will rule the day, I know this much for a fact, Feanor in our coalition channel said WP would be granted at the end of any conflict, Bigwoody said the same damn thing so think about that for a minute. [b]When they entered in to the war they had no intentions of doing anything else other than gaining victory for the coalition they were apart of.[/b] This war has nothing to do with freedom and to try and score simple PR points based on that is ridiculous.
[/quote]

[quote name='TOP declaration of war']
We agree with the New Polar Order's reasons for war against \m/, and we consider ourselves part of that particular side of the war. [b]For our part, however, much our reason to enter this war lies in our desire to defeat those who have shown time and time again, in public and in private, that doing harm to us is high on their agenda[/b]---and that, indeed, they would take advantage of any advantageous opportunity to do so. This is a war they have brought upon themselves.
[/quote]

Who am I supposed to believe? You or TOP? Because frankly, I'd rather believe TOP when they say this war isn't really about gaining victory for their coalition, but about their rampant paranoia regarding CnG.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='09 February 2010 - 06:03 PM' timestamp='1265738607' post='2170828']
This is so amazingly out of the NPO 2007 playbook that I am almost speechless. 'We are going to keep rolling them indefinitely and it's [i]their fault[/i].'

They attacked you because you were going to counter attack them anyway, as part of a plan cleared with the Polar coalition that they entered as a part of. As Yevgeni says, anything other that that is revisionism.
[/quote]

If we keep rolling them indefinitely it really is their fault. The only thing they have to do is make themselves weaker than us, a lot weaker. How they choose to do that is entirely up to them. The blame falls on their shoulders because [b]they attacked us[/b]. Why are you trying to negate and overlook this fact? Maybe because it doesn't suite your agenda?

The simplification you use to try to paint us as the new hegemons completely ignores the fact that they attacked us. Try "We are going to keep DEFENDING AGAINST THEM indefinitely and it's [i]their fault[/i]". It is both more accurate and maybe, just maybe, it seems a little less like the NPO 2007 playbook? Or were the NPO attacked in 2007 with the CB that they were a threat and then they said it was the attackers fault they didn't get peace until they stopped being a threat? Please refresh my memory if that is the case.

As long as you do not have a shred of proof that we were definitely going to aggressively attack them when the time was right, you should not use that as an argument. Please try to stick to the facts, because otherwise I might just present the argument that TOP was plotting to destroy CnG all along and will [i]never[/i] give up so all we can do is force them to disband. And we can keep arguing back and forth without any proof of anything until we're blue in the face.

The counter attack argument falls flat on it's face. By that logic, we can attack anyone today because sometime in the future they might be planning to counter-attack us when we attack their allies.

Are you saying that you will support us when we start aggressively attacking alliances and beating them down in a 7 on 1 dogpile because one day they [i]might[/i] attack us to [i]defend[/i] their allies? It seems like you are. It also doesn't seem like something you would do.

[Alterego]

We knew we were next after TOP at least this way we had a fighting chance.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Alterego

[Bob]

[quote name='Alterego' date='10 February 2010 - 06:26 PM' timestamp='1265844403' post='2173366']
We knew we were next after TOP at least this way we had a fighting chance.
[/quote]
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.

Edited February 11, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[potato]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='11 February 2010 - 01:08 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]

Plus, Purplol was higher on the roll list than TOP.

But seriously... We didn't like some of TOP most active posters but after both Q&A sessions and the following fancy sigs, there was a much better understanding of how TOP operates. I'm not saying we were "OMG BBF4EVA " but there certainly wasn't the animosity TOP seem to have imagined.

Edited February 11, 2010 by potato

[Denial]

[quote name='Methrage' date='09 February 2010 - 02:54 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]
[quote name='Methrage' date='09 February 2010 - 03:56 PM' timestamp='1265696795' post='2170150']
Members of C&G have already admitted on OWF they saw TOP as an enemy before this war began, so to claim TOP had nothing to worry about from C&G before they delcared is just propaganda. If you guys actually wanted to show TOP they don't need to worry about you guys you would give white peace, but instead you would rather continue the failed policy of keeping former enemies down that ended badly for NPO. Karma gets everyone eventually I suppose.
[/quote]
You know, I see this line paraded about, ad nauseam, by countless members of your side as if it is some form of triumphant breakthrough in logical reasoning that can thus be utilised in all your piss-poor attempts at written propaganda. It's a shame it has less grasp of fact than MCXA does of military tactics. Let's examine what you are saying. Complaints & Grievances, in order to display to TOP and IRON that we do not pose a threat to their alliances and delicate sensibilities, after being aggressively attacked with justification that TOP leadership still has trouble explaining or even comprehending, should turn around and simply say "oh, that's okay, we don't mind you raining nuclear weapons down upon us as a litmus test into your own paranoia; here, enjoy a white peace"? If speculation, intuition and unfavourable commentary on the forums were enough for TOP and IRON to categorise Complaints & Grievances as a threat, what should Complaints & Grievances now categorise a group who attacked us without cause? Something far more serious than a 'threat', I would guess. Further, the not-so-subtle comparison between Complaints & Grievances and the New Pacific Order is cute, but let me remind you that Complaints & Grievances was not the side that aggressively attacked an entire bloc, in a display of wanton belligerence that is unparalleled in this Cyberverse.

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='09 February 2010 - 06:00 PM' timestamp='1265704251' post='2170306']
I think it's funny how people are still trying to cling to the illusion that CnG wasn't going to be attack TOP/IRON in the war (and just for who they were a year ago). This is the third time in two months that they were ready for any chance to jump them.
[/quote]
The only occasion where TOP and IRON had any valid reason to suspect a C&G attack upon them was if they directly attacked one of our allies. Because, you know, that's what decent alliances do; honour their treaties.

[quote name='Alterego' date='11 February 2010 - 08:56 AM' timestamp='1265844403' post='2173366']
We knew we were next after TOP at least this way we had a fighting chance.
[/quote]
Right, because BAPS are so strategically important that we'd orchestrate another potential global war just to strike you down.

Edited February 11, 2010 by Denial

[Prime minister Johns]

Why am I fighting?
To get peace for the NSO as far as I can gather.

What will I consider victory?
When the NpO and the NSO get peace and we retire to the sidelines of this war to drink beers and laugh and have a wonderful time.


I doubt that outside TOP/IRON and C&G there is any real ideology involved, everyone else is either bandwagoning or is defending an ally.

Edited February 11, 2010 by Prime minister Johns

[Denial]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='10 February 2010 - 11:24 AM' timestamp='1265766883' post='2171612']
There's a fundamental difference. NPO started a war. TOP and IRON entered an existing war.
[/quote]
Entered an existing war by... attacking only alliances that were entirely uninvolved in that war? That makes sense!

The fact of the matter is that TOP and IRON created an entirely new conflict by aggressively striking Complaints & Grievances, and this war will be conducted from our side accordingly.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Cataduanes' date='10 February 2010 - 09:24 AM' timestamp='1265811872' post='2172556']
Not only not clever but unwarranted surely , since when have pre-emptive strikes been an acceptable option in CN?
[/quote]
Since when have the lengthy treaty chains of alliances declaring on other alliances they have no plans of attacking just to let allies of allies hit them been acceptable?

I see ODN plainly admit to declaring just for that very reason to win the wider war, pre-emptive strikes are no worse. Having a ton of alliances sign off to have an alliance declare where needed seems silly.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='The Warrior' date='10 February 2010 - 05:28 PM' timestamp='1265840938' post='2173284']
Try reading next time.
[/quote]
[i]I don't believe you.[/i]

Try thinking next time.

[Hayzell]

I'm glad that at least both sides can agree that threats should be eliminated insofar as possible when one has the chance to do so.

The key points of difference seems to be what justifies viewing another as a threat, and what's a justfiable means of eliminating a threat. Both those points seem subjective and malleable enough to fit whoever's view it politically alligns with.

[Style #386]

[quote name='Methrage' date='10 February 2010 - 09:04 PM' timestamp='1265853873' post='2173620']
Since when have the lengthy treaty chains of alliances declaring on other alliances they have no plans of attacking just to let allies of allies hit them been acceptable?
[/quote]
The acceptability of lengthy chains is subject for debate, sure, but it's fairly incomparable to pre-emptive strikes on uninvolved parties.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Style #386' date='10 February 2010 - 09:39 PM' timestamp='1265855958' post='2173687']
The acceptability of lengthy chains is subject for debate, sure, but it's fairly incomparable to pre-emptive strikes on uninvolved parties.
[/quote]
So ODN members referring to alliances fighting on our side as being on the "other side" was just baiting alliances into attacking you guys, but you were actually uninvolved up to that point? Can't say that was a smart move seeing where it got you if you really didn't want this.

[Style #386]

[quote name='Methrage' date='10 February 2010 - 09:45 PM' timestamp='1265856337' post='2173707']
So ODN members referring to alliances fighting on our side as being on the "other side" was just baiting alliances into attacking you guys, but you were actually uninvolved up to that point? Can't say that was a smart move seeing where it got you if you really didn't want this.
[/quote]
I don't recall making a statement about sides.

As for ODN's members, they are free to say what they will. Freedom of speech and whatnot does not imply policy.

Edited February 11, 2010 by Style #386

[Hayzell]

[quote name='Style #386' date='10 February 2010 - 09:39 PM' timestamp='1265855958' post='2173687']
The acceptability of lengthy chains is subject for debate, sure, but it's fairly incomparable to pre-emptive strikes on uninvolved parties.
[/quote]

But the latter is a direct result of the former. In all practicality is just seems silly to go in through two ghost declarations when you could just as easily cut to the chase and choose the most strategic targets available. If you recognize that after the first DoW, coalitions are formed and it largely becomes a matter of one side trying to defeat the other, using ghost declarations simply because it allows you to technically enter in a 'legal' fashion seems unnecessary. Had MK n co not had the foresight to put pressure on \m/ to peace out at the appropriate time, we would be looking at a different war.

[Style #386]

[quote name='Hayzell' date='10 February 2010 - 09:49 PM' timestamp='1265856597' post='2173717']
But the latter is a direct result of the former. In all practicality is just seems silly to go in through two ghost declarations when you could just as easily cut to the chase and choose the most strategic targets available. If you recognize that after the first DoW, coalitions are formed and it largely becomes a matter of one side trying to defeat the other, using ghost declarations simply because it allows you to technically enter in a 'legal' fashion seems unnecessary. Had MK n co not had the foresight to put pressure on \m/ to peace out at the appropriate time, we would be looking at a different war.
[/quote]
We're still talking apples and oranges here. ODN used a chain and hit a party at war; a legal target, per se. No amount of chaining could have allowed TOP and IRON to hit CnG as they did.

[Lennox]

This war is worth fighting in because this may be the last time anyone has the balls to attack someone.

[Mack Truck]

[quote name='Methrage' date='11 February 2010 - 12:45 PM' timestamp='1265856337' post='2173707']
So ODN members referring to alliances fighting on our side as being on the "other side" was just baiting alliances into attacking you guys, but you were actually uninvolved up to that point? Can't say that was a smart move seeing where it got you if you really didn't want this.
[/quote]

Do you always work out what side an alliance is on by the posts of their members? I usually do it by seeing who's attacking who. I suppose I'm just old-fashioned that way.

[junkahoolik]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='11 February 2010 - 02:08 AM' timestamp='1265846906' post='2173445']
This is how paranoid people are.
[/quote]

this is what your coalition leaders let the "other side" believe through their actions. blame them.

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='11 February 2010 - 04:07 AM' timestamp='1265854056' post='2173629']
[i]I don't believe you.[/i]

Try thinking next time.
[/quote]

you don't believe because you don't want to. hence the hate that comes from the "other side". (can you see the chain there??)

Edited February 11, 2010 by junkahoolik

[Arthur Blair]

[quote name='junkahoolik' date='11 February 2010 - 10:26 AM' timestamp='1265883964' post='2174449']
this is what your coalition leaders let the "other side" believe through their actions. blame them.
[/quote]

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.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Hayzell' date='11 February 2010 - 02:49 PM' timestamp='1265856597' post='2173717']
But the latter is a direct result of the former. In all practicality is just seems silly to go in through two ghost declarations when you could just as easily cut to the chase and choose the most strategic targets available. If you recognize that after the first DoW, coalitions are formed and it largely becomes a matter of one side trying to defeat the other, using ghost declarations simply because it allows you to technically enter in a 'legal' fashion seems unnecessary. Had MK n co not had the foresight to put pressure on \m/ to peace out at the appropriate time, we would be looking at a different war.
[/quote]

Damn MK for causing that war to end peacefully- what other unaccountable crimes have they committed?

Judging by the reaction to TOP's DoW on C&G- it would appear that "entering in a 'legal' fashion" is, in fact, very necessary. Being given free reign to attack anyone you want because they will be on a different 'side' to you is pure rubbish. As the NpO has shown in this war 'sides' are not a clear cut issue. This war has no formal coalitions like others have in the past- simply the OWF coined "supercomplaints' moniker. This means you cannot say for certain "Alliance x will be an enemy" and proceed to attack them. You must wait for an 'in,' otherwise a situation like the current one occurs.

Edited February 11, 2010 by jamesdanaher

[Arthur Blair]

[quote name='jamesdanaher' date='11 February 2010 - 12:12 PM' timestamp='1265890325' post='2174546']
Damn MK for causing that war to end peacefully- what other unaccountable crimes have they committed?

Judging by the reaction to TOP's DoW on C&G- it would appear that "entering in a 'legal' fashion" is, in fact, very necessary. Being given free reign to attack anyone you want because they will be on a different 'side' to you is pure rubbish. As the NpO has shown in this war 'sides' are not a clear cut issue. This war has no formal coalitions like others have in the past- simply the OWF coined "supercomplaints' moniker. This means you cannot say for certain "Alliance x will be an enemy" and proceed to attack them. You must wait for an 'in,' otherwise a situation like the current one occurs.
[/quote]

You fail to realize that everything they do is our fault.

[Bob Janova]

'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]since when have pre-emptive strikes been an acceptable option in CN?[/quote]
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.