Why the war is worth fighting

[Jack Diorno]

[quote name='Zero-One' date='13 February 2010 - 12:04 AM' timestamp='1265983482' post='2177528']
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!!
[/quote]
I was merely pointing out the stupidity of trying to argue down a C&G member and convince them that they deserved to be attacked for no reason.
If Bob wants to continue telling us we deserved it but not providing any proof outside of "suspicions" then he can go for it.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Jack Diorno' date='12 February 2010 - 02:11 PM' timestamp='1265983882' post='2177537']
I was merely pointing out the stupidity of trying to argue down a C&G member and convince them that they deserved to be attacked for no reason.
[/quote]
They werent attacked for no reason. Only a naive person would believe that.

[Jack Diorno]

[quote name='Alterego' date='13 February 2010 - 12:15 AM' timestamp='1265984100' post='2177541']
They werent attacked for no reason. Only a naive person would believe that.
[/quote]
I'm sorry I didn't specify properly.

We were attacked because TOP were paranoid enough to believe C&G, for some obscure reason, would pick the strongest alliance and make a secret plan to kill them when they hadn't done anything wrong by us.
Yes.
Must specify.

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='Zero-One' date='12 February 2010 - 02:04 PM' timestamp='1265983482' post='2177528']
How many time does Bob Janova have to repeat himself only to have you mindless hyenas ignoring everything he said only to repeat yourself?
[/quote]

Until he provides something more then circumstantial opinion to verify his claims. I never ignore Bob, he is a smart guy and one of several reasons I joined Gramlins in the first place. That being said he has been one of the more vocal people making proclomations of intent of other parties that were attacked. Now he might be correct, I think he believes he is correct. But if you want the "mindless hyenas" to stop, might be time to put forth some evidence, something more then speculation of intent. [b]Otherwise not only do you invite the ridcule of others you begin to look like a mindless hyena yourself. [/b]

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Jack Diorno' date='12 February 2010 - 09:20 AM' timestamp='1265984428' post='2177548']
I'm sorry I didn't specify properly.

We were attacked because TOP were paranoid enough to believe C&G, for some obscure reason, would pick the strongest alliance and make a secret plan to kill them when they hadn't done anything wrong by us.
Yes.
Must specify.
[/quote]
Actually, to be fair, in some circles that is a common groupthink. If you are "king of the hill" then there is always someone planning to push you off, right?

In this instance I believe they went about it the wrong way but it is a fairly easy analysis that lends itself to the war eventually escalating to the point at which CnG would have entered opposite TOP at some future point. Prior to the pre-emptive declaration the talk was that Athens wanted to declare on Polar very badly and was being held back but if IRON had declared on Fark and the chain would have continued through that process (which is what I believe should have happened) the "sides" would have stayed almost exactly the same overall with a few notible (and sizeable) exceptions.

But ultimately, whether through natural progression or this pre-emptive strike TOP and CnG would have been on opposing sides had escalation continued unchecked, as I believe it would have.

Note: That does not mean I believe the pre-emptive strike was justified as it was handled, just that the end result would have ultimately been the same most likely. Although the sides would have been a bit more even overall I imagine had they made the progression correctly.

[Cataduanes]

[quote name='Jack Diorno' date='12 February 2010 - 02:20 PM' timestamp='1265984428' post='2177548']
I'm sorry I didn't specify properly.

We were attacked because[b] TOP were paranoid enough to believe C&G, for some obscure reason, would pick the strongest alliance and make a secret plan to kill them when they hadn't done anything wrong by us. [/b]Yes.
Must specify.
[/quote]
And we are all still waiting for irrefutable proof to that effect, however i am not going to hold my breathe waiting for said proof...unless mere posts are enough to condemn C&G to war in these times.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Cataduanes' date='12 February 2010 - 09:39 AM' timestamp='1265985542' post='2177563']
And we are all still waiting for irrefutable proof to that effect, however i am not going to hold my breathe waiting for said proof...unless mere posts are enough to condemn C&G to war in these times.
[/quote]
As I said, it has nothing to do with actual evidence. It is a groupthink mentality of paranoia that often accompanies being on top. ODN wouldn't know anything about that of course since you have never been there, but it does exist.

I know for a fact that some alliances that I personally planned action against were not planning to attack us but I needed an enemy and manufactured reasons just the same, because that is how it works.

[Cataduanes]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='12 February 2010 - 02:45 PM' timestamp='1265985934' post='2177565']
ODN wouldn't know anything about that of course since you have never been there, but it does exist.[/quote]
I have been in other shores you know...not just ODN . That said i do see your point.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Cataduanes' date='12 February 2010 - 09:50 AM' timestamp='1265986249' post='2177569']
I have been in other shores you know...not just ODN . That said i do see your point.
[/quote]
It was a generalized "you", not necessarily a specific one.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='12 February 2010 - 08:46 AM' timestamp='1265982376' post='2177513']
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.
[/quote]

This is a very misleading picture, it makes it seem as if Polar & allies were outnumbered. At the time of TOP and IRON's entry the Crusaders [i]already[/i] had an advantage of almost 20M strength.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='12 February 2010 - 09:58 AM' timestamp='1265986739' post='2177582']
This is a very misleading picture, it makes it seem as if Polar & allies were outnumbered. At the time of TOP and IRON's entry the Crusaders [i]already[/i] had an advantage of almost 20M strength.
[/quote]
Where was that? I am just asking because I don't know. I know at the time Polar peaced out, prior to our seeking and gaining peace with FOK, RnR, iFOK and a few others, we were fighting 10 to 1 odds in NSO. It is good to know that others had it lined up better, I just don't know where that alignment was.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='12 February 2010 - 10:05 AM' timestamp='1265987156' post='2177590']
Where was that? I am just asking because I don't know. I know at the time Polar peaced out, prior to our seeking and gaining peace with FOK, RnR, iFOK and a few others, we were fighting 10 to 1 odds in NSO. It is good to know that others had it lined up better, I just don't know where that alignment was.
[/quote]

You can see stats from about 2 hours before TOP declared [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=11169&view=findpost&p=2138279"]here[/url].

I believe most of the strength was arrayed against Stickmen, although it's hard to judge how strength was distributed without examining the declarations in more detail.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='12 February 2010 - 10:18 AM' timestamp='1265987915' post='2177610']
You can see stats from about 2 hours before TOP declared [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=11169&view=findpost&p=2138279"]here[/url].

I believe most of the strength was arrayed against Stickmen, although it's hard to judge how strength was distributed without examining the declarations in more detail.
[/quote]
Right, but I believe a large percentage of those declarations occured just a few hours before Polar peaced out and most of the front collapsed. I am not even sure any of the alliances that declared that day even performed a quad in the war before immediately moving back to white peace overall. The day prior there was a [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=11169&view=findpost&p=2135907"]7 million NS[/url] gap.

Regardless, thanks for the link. It is interesting to see.

[Lord Brendan]

True, it's hard to tell how much of the strength displayed was actually being used effectively. In any case I wouldn't say that either side was "surrounded on all sides by attackers", which Bob was suggesting.

If not for the preemptive attack and the Polar-\m/ peace I think we'd have seen a much more even war.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Lord Brendan

[Bob Janova]

I said that NSO was surrounded on all sides, which was fairly accurate. The fact that the Polar coalition was up on numbers overall makes it even closer to certain that C&G was going to be brought in on the raiding side, as they've made it very clear that they won't let SF get beaten in a war (which would have been the result if they had not entered).

I'm glad Ivan gets it ...
[quote]In this instance I believe they went about it the wrong way but it is a fairly easy analysis that lends itself to the war eventually escalating to the point at which CnG would have entered opposite TOP at some future point. Prior to the pre-emptive declaration the talk was that Athens wanted to declare on Polar very badly and was being held back but if IRON had declared on Fark and the chain would have continued through that process (which is what I believe should have happened) the "sides" would have stayed almost exactly the same overall with a few notible (and sizeable) exceptions.

But ultimately, whether through natural progression or this pre-emptive strike TOP and CnG would have been on opposing sides had escalation continued unchecked, as I believe it would have.[/quote]

[Ogaden]

Bob, when the war began with Polar attacking \m/, Ragnarok couldn't help out \m/ because RoK had a treaty with Polar. In the beginning, even SF's involvement was unlikely, let alone C&G. It was never inevitable that we would be on the same side once again. When FOK attacked Polar, things went global, but even then initially we weren't sure if we would end up fighting AGAINST C&G...

Edited February 12, 2010 by James Dahl

[junkahoolik]

[quote name='Cataduanes' date='12 February 2010 - 04:39 PM' timestamp='1265985542' post='2177563']
And we are all still waiting for irrefutable proof to that effect, however i am not going to hold my breathe waiting for said proof...unless mere posts are enough to condemn C&G to war in these times.
[/quote]

cata, i'll give you a nugget of threat as soon as someone finds a way to extrapolate it into solid/liquid/gaseous form. cause i can sure see that actions and reactions aren't enough for CnG's side.

edit: hmm... maybe gaseous wouldn't be such a good idea

ps: i'm appointing you to do it. i'll give it to you as soon as you develop the process to do it

Edited February 12, 2010 by junkahoolik

[Cataduanes]

[quote name='junkahoolik' date='12 February 2010 - 11:36 PM' timestamp='1266017800' post='2178312']
cata, i'll give you a nugget of threat as soon as someone finds a way to extrapolate it into solid/liquid/gaseous form. cause i can sure see that actions and reactions aren't enough for CnG's side.

edit: hmm... maybe gaseous wouldn't be such a good idea

ps: i'm appointing you to do it. i'll give it to you as soon as you develop the process to do it
[/quote]
I must admit your post made me giggle, i shall look into a possible process forthwith

[Jerichoholic]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='12 February 2010 - 09:35 AM' timestamp='1265985353' post='2177560']
Actually, to be fair, in some circles that is a common groupthink. If you are "king of the hill" then there is always someone planning to push you off, right?

In this instance I believe they went about it the wrong way but it is a fairly easy analysis that lends itself to the war eventually escalating to the point at which CnG would have entered opposite TOP at some future point. Prior to the pre-emptive declaration the talk was that Athens wanted to declare on Polar very badly and was being held back but if IRON had declared on Fark and the chain would have continued through that process (which is what I believe should have happened) the "sides" would have stayed almost exactly the same overall with a few notible (and sizeable) exceptions.

But ultimately, whether through natural progression or this pre-emptive strike TOP and CnG would have been on opposing sides had escalation continued unchecked, as I believe it would have.

Note: That does not mean I believe the pre-emptive strike was justified as it was handled, just that the end result would have ultimately been the same most likely. Although the sides would have been a bit more even overall I imagine had they made the progression correctly.
[/quote]
If IRON declared on Fark, wouldn't that make SF a bigger threat than C&G? Seeing as, ya know, they are a member of the SuperFriends and all...

[Bob Janova]

Yes and no. SF were already fairly fully engaged, and have a weak top tier, so it's unlikely that SF would have been able to mount a serious counter against TOP (against IRON, yes, particularly if Harmlins helped there).

[quote]Bob, when the war began with Polar attacking \m/, Ragnarok couldn't help out \m/ because RoK had a treaty with Polar. In the beginning, even SF's involvement was unlikely, let alone C&G. It was never inevitable that we would be on the same side once again. When FOK attacked Polar, things went global, but even then initially we weren't sure if we would end up fighting AGAINST C&G...[/quote]
Plausible but not correct ... don't forget I'm in a SF sphere alliance, and we were trying to calm people down from the beginning. It was made pretty clear that the chain that eventually transpired (\m/-PC-FOK-R&R-SF) was being planned for and basically inevitable. C&G (MK and Vanguard in particular) made it quite clear that they wouldn't be supporting Polar. Also, I've heard it said (during the New Year drama) that C&G and SF will always roll together – Supergrievances is a real 'side'.

[Electron Sponge]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='13 February 2010 - 10:25 PM' timestamp='1266099956' post='2179806']
Supergrievances is a real 'side'.
[/quote]
I might end up having a problem with this.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='13 February 2010 - 04:25 PM' timestamp='1266099956' post='2179806']
It was made pretty clear that the chain that eventually transpired (\m/-PC-FOK-R&R-SF) was being planned for and basically inevitable. C&G (MK and Vanguard in particular) made it quite clear that they wouldn't be supporting Polar. Also, I've heard it said (during the New Year drama) that C&G and SF will always roll together – Supergrievances is a real 'side'.It was made pretty clear that the chain that eventually transpired (\m/-PC-FOK-R&R-SF) was being planned for and basically inevitable. C&G (MK and Vanguard in particular) made it quite clear that they wouldn't be supporting Polar. Also, I've heard it said (during the New Year drama) that C&G and SF will always roll together – Supergrievances is a real 'side'.
[/quote]
First
[quote]It was made pretty clear that the chain that eventually transpired (\m/-PC-FOK-R&R-SF) was being planned for and basically inevitable.[/quote]
No. If that were the case, I'm certain Polar wouldn't have attacked \m/. PC acted on their own, FOK acted on their own, etc. \m/ did not see [i]any[/i] of this coming, and I'm certain there was no planning for such. If we were being used by the powers that be as a puppet, then I guess we did a damn good job.
[quote]
C&G (MK and Vanguard in particular) made it quite clear that they wouldn't be supporting Polar.
[/quote]
You know who else isn't supporting Polar right now? STA. Besides, there was no official announcement from either. This is merely speculation. On top of that, you ignore GR. There was no definitive proof that there would be no support. If we break up C&G we have- Vanguard- allies on both sides, MK- allies on both sides, GR- allies on both sides (probably want to fight for Polar though). Then you have FoB, Athens, =LOST=, and ODN. So around half of C&G is unwilling to move, and around half were ready to move for PC.
[quote]
Also, I've heard it said (during the New Year drama) that C&G and SF will always roll together – Supergrievances is a real 'side'.
[/quote]
What? That's hardly true. Granted, around the New Year's drama that would have been prevalent, and they are tied together, but they will hardly [i]always[/i] roll together.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Earogema

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Electron Sponge' date='14 February 2010 - 08:44 AM' timestamp='1266101043' post='2179832']
I might end up having a problem with this.
[/quote]
So what do you intend to do about it?

[No sarcasm is intended by the way, I'm genuinely interested]

[Electron Sponge]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='13 February 2010 - 11:14 PM' timestamp='1266102857' post='2179869']
So what do you intend to do about it?

[No sarcasm is intended by the way, I'm genuinely interested]
[/quote]
Nothing right now as I don't currently have an issue. Superfriends and C&G don't seem to be too interested in lording over others. If it gets to that point where things need to be done, I'd think that we'd be "getting the band back together" or something. Who knows? It's all just hypothetical. Given my history and my past associations I think it would be pretty obvious that I don't place much trust in mega-blocs to be responsible actors, and that I see the accumulation of alliances into these gigantic blocs as a definite corrupting influence. Let's just say the last few years have given me a healthy skepticism born of my own experiences both as a member of one of these blocs and as a target of several more.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Electron Sponge' date='13 February 2010 - 06:23 PM' timestamp='1266106992' post='2179951']
"getting the band back together"
[/quote]
I'm ready when you are.