Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Syzygy

The End. It's coming.

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 11:22 AM' timestamp='1265905369' post='2174860']
Being better than the Hegemony. Go read some of Archon's words from Karma.
[/quote]
I'd like to see you point out a time where the Hegemony was attacked preemptively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Aimee Mann' date='11 February 2010 - 07:24 PM' timestamp='1265905443' post='2174862']
The difference is that kriekfreak gave some justification for his attacks on (DAC)Syzygy by referencing what he'd written (aka attacking the post), whilst HellAngel on the other hand decided to spew out an insult with no reasoning whatsoever (aka attacking the poster and not the post).
[/quote]
So, if I just reference to your post (or any for that matter) and without trying to discuss it or say anything, and go attacking you personally, it is ok?? :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='der_ko' date='11 February 2010 - 11:25 AM' timestamp='1265905503' post='2174864']
i wouldn't mind letting TOP/IRON have peace as long as they pay for the damages they've caused as is customary with rogue attacks.

So far my damages are $1,630,539,546.20 (military spending, loss of future income not included) and 1930 tech. I'm sure the rest of my C&G comrades can calculate their damages too and if TOP/IRON agrees to fix what they've broken they can have peace.
[/quote]
I have never understood this argument. Reperations are designed to punish the loser of a war, not replenish the losses of the victors, especially in the context of the Cyberverse. No amount of reperations will adequately replace every piece of lost infrastructure in a large scale war. Wars by definition in the Cyberverse cost more than can hope to be recovered feasibly through the aid system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Arthur Blair' date='11 February 2010 - 08:57 AM' timestamp='1265896652' post='2174676']
What would you have us do? Accept their offer of white peace so that they may come for us again with another flimsy CB?
[/quote]


[quote name='Timmehhh' date='11 February 2010 - 10:04 AM' timestamp='1265900678' post='2174762']
[b]So TOP & co declare an aggressive war on C&G and destroy the top tier of C&G in a 8 day offensive war while dishing out a lot more damage than they took. [/b]Now the first wave is over, and the advantage has swifted to the defenders side and C&G need to peace out immediately because otherwise its unfair? If someone comes in your house and kills your wife, and you manage to shoot him in the leg, the judge in the court won't say "Ooh but you shot his leg, things are even now, next case!"

Let alone that the reasons for this war have been dubious to say the least, it basically boils down too "we don't like C&G and we consider them a threat". C&G has every right to keep them at war a little longer. And knowing C&G, I know they won't keep someone in war a long unneeded time, like IRON did to FAN, they just want their retribution and after that peace will be offered which is fine with me.
[/quote]
Just to answer the bolded, Once polar accepted the peace all could have been peaced out with minimal damage as was done on most of the front. C&G choose to recognize this as a separate war and wished it to continue. Not arguing their rights to this pov only that this could have peaced out from the very beggining.

[quote name='Arthur Blair' date='11 February 2010 - 10:35 AM' timestamp='1265902558' post='2174788']
Your three steps are suggesting you're in a reality where [b]TOP didn't form a coalition[/b] and come for us with a flimsy CB. If by joining an enemy coalition you mean hold treaties with alliances TOP plan on attacking, you are correct. How can we be sure they will not plan to attack our allies and thus consider us part of an enemy coalition the moment we give them white peace?



Your very plausible alternative does nothing to change the fact that they are a threat. No matter the reason for their aggression, their goal is still to eliminate us as a threat and they have shown they will not shy away from attacking first when they think they have the advantage. Is it not sensible to ensure they will never have that advantage?

What standards do we claim to uphold, exactly? That we will destroy those who attack us?
[/quote]
Exactly TOP didnt form a coalition they joined one it was not TOPS war they did what they thought would benifit the coalition. Yes there is hate between C&G and TOP but this didnt have to happen now it could have easily been avoided. While I respect C&Gs right to do what they want playing the victim and saying TOP came for us its just not true. They were there to facilitate a victory for the coalition which in this case was simply accepting the agreement offered. That victory was achieved albeit not in the way expected. C&G was the reserves for the war and by cutting them off and taking some advantage fromt them was a sound tactical move imo but in retrospect probably not the best one. C&G could have peaced this out with little damage and we could have all gone back to plotting on each other . SyZ is correct they are now using this to pound all opposition I cannot say its rigth or wrong but that is a fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='ROMMELHSQ' date='11 February 2010 - 04:28 PM' timestamp='1265905690' post='2174871']
So, if I just reference to your post (or any for that matter) and without trying to discuss it or say anything, and go attacking you personally, it is ok?? :mellow:
[/quote]
If you are inferring that kriekfreak didn't discuss or say anything about (DAC)'s post then you are wrong and should probably go back and read again. But yeah generally if you attack me on the basis of whatever is in my post (and don't just issue random insults or attacks) then of course that is fine by me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reparations for attacks in the 15 minutes before the other fronts had peace break out would be reasonable ;)

Ivan: Certainly, what we're seeing now is that those words were for some just a smokescreen. But those are the standards that MK and C&G professed to be fighting for, and that's what was asked. (Also, [i]some[/i] of us actually believed in all that 'better world' stuff ;).)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 04:22 PM' timestamp='1265905369' post='2174860']

They did not 'plan to attack your allies' until your allies joined a coalition war and placed their own allies and friends at war. It is not as if TOP is going around looking for alliances to attack – in fact I don't believe TOP has [i]ever[/i] 'shot first' and started a war.
[/quote]

I can tell you havent been in Cit for some time. Remember the whole TPF thing where LM was leading the coalition to counterstrike those who hit them? You sure they havent been looking for alliances to attack? I understand your rational regarding the TOP dow they proclaimed in that DOW they were coming in on the polar side. I dont believe they had the intention of starting a seperate conflict even if that is what it evolved too. However you know as well as the rest of us (I believe you conceded this in a prior thread as well) that TOP has been paranoid about being hit by CnG for sometime, ive witnessed the conversations in the old beerhall. To suggest they didnt have a plan of action in place to hit people they deemed as threats is extremely nieve or willfully ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 11:34 AM' timestamp='1265906071' post='2174884']
Reparations for attacks in the 15 minutes before the other fronts had peace break out would be reasonable ;)

Ivan: Certainly, what we're seeing now is that those words were for some just a smokescreen. But those are the standards that MK and C&G professed to be fighting for, and that's what was asked. (Also, [i]some[/i] of us actually believed in all that 'better world' stuff ;).)
[/quote]
I understand your point. My point however is that people like you (those that are convinced and believe the words) are the main reason they are said to begin with, regardless of actual motivations.

If you can get people to believe your expressed ideals, regardless of whether you believe them or not, then you can manipulate them. Of course it is better for the overall facade if you believe in the words yourself, it allows for less occurance of inconsistency, but a sufficiently motivated or rhetorically equipped speaker can fake it very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vilien' date='11 February 2010 - 04:28 PM' timestamp='1265905688' post='2174870']
I'd like to see you point out a time where the Hegemony was attacked preemptively.
[/quote]

GWII and GWIII if you would still extend the title of "Hegemony" to the Initiative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Commisar Gaunt' date='11 February 2010 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1265904230' post='2174839']
Don't you have about $750 million on hand to fuel your 18k infra nation
[/quote]
Its a bit over a billion, well enough for a nation that will have rather small infra bills to pay in a few days and with no plans to rebuild. The day where someone has to teach me about economics still has to come, youngling.

Besides that, I never said anything about "white peace" or that C&G does not have the right to strike back. The point is simply that a defender is only a defender as long as there is an attacker willing to keep attacking. In the moment the attacker withdraws (offers surrender), and the defender does not take this offer - he stops being a defender. He is then no longer in defense, but in pursuit. That is why in almost every country there is a law that you can defend yourself against an attack with any means - but you have to stop if the attack is over, else you will be taken to court as well.

And that again means, all obligations to "defend" someone or the right to "defend" yourself end at the moment the attacker offers surrender. Leading to the point where all these allies claiming the moral highground "because TOP fired the first shot!!!" simply keep fighting "because they can" and not because they have any obligations. Which is, like earlier mentioned, exactly the same mentality and attitude like in hegemony times. Most will claim otherwise, to justify a prolonged war, but still logic beats their efforts and like always, the blood they spill today without need will come back to them later. But thats the funny part about history. It always repeats itself, and those currently in power never believe it. :)


Besides all that, I never tought "my nation will turn the tides". Stupid is he who even thinks so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Odin – Certainly, TOP are prepared to organise military strikes on those that are lined up against them in a coalition. The TPF incident showed that (remember, IRON were a first-step mandated defender of TPF in that case). That is entirely different to them being a threat to alliances that are not already lining up in a global war, though.

Yes, TOP have long had issues with paranoia and C&G have been a prime focus of that. But again, that is very different from actually planning to attack them, except in the context of a global war which they were already part of. (And yes, I know, they were not militarily a part of it yet – I've already acknowledged several times that the pre-emptive strike was a mistake.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let me get this right, TOP and Co. declare a pre-emptive strike on CnG, they soon realize it was a mistake, and now CnG is criticized for not yet offering a quick white peace out for them? What? Uh.. I dont even....... :wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Letum' date='11 February 2010 - 11:43 AM' timestamp='1265906583' post='2174908']
GWII and GWIII if you would still extend the title of "Hegemony" to the Initiative.
[/quote]
Great War II started with a preemptive attack on Fark by GOONS. Great War III started with Pacifica declaring war on GATO. Am I missing something?

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 11:34 AM' timestamp='1265906071' post='2174884']
Ivan: Certainly, what we're seeing now is that those words were for some just a smokescreen. But those are the standards that MK and C&G professed to be fighting for, and that's what was asked. (Also, [i]some[/i] of us actually believed in all that 'better world' stuff ;).)
[/quote]
I still don't understand how not immediately giving white peace to a group of alliances that attack you is anywhere close to the kind of crap that the Hegemony used to pull. The fact that we still haven't seen any excessive reparations and terms from CnG's side is proof positive that we are living in a different world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vilien' date='11 February 2010 - 04:52 PM' timestamp='1265907126' post='2174930']
Great War II started with a preemptive attack on Fark by GOONS. Great War III started with Pacifica declaring war on GATO. Am I missing something?
[/quote]

And in retaliation, declarations of war were made by their friends/allies on Initiative members that weren't in the war yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lenex' date='11 February 2010 - 09:49 AM' timestamp='1265906965' post='2174926']
So let me get this right, TOP and Co. declare a pre-emptive strike on CnG, they soon realize it was a mistake, and now CnG is criticized for not yet offering a quick white peace out for them? What? Uh.. I dont even....... :wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko:
[/quote]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the point is not they realize it was a mistake...but the war they were joining had stopped.

Now we have C&G basically using part of TOP's reason for continuing the war. It's rather hilarious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lenex' date='11 February 2010 - 05:49 PM' timestamp='1265906965' post='2174926']
So let me get this right, TOP and Co. declare a pre-emptive strike on CnG, they soon realize it was a mistake, and now CnG is criticized for not yet offering a quick white peace out for them? What? Uh.. I dont even....... :wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko:
[/quote]
Correct, you don't even...


...bothered to read. No one is demanding white peace here. Go try again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vilien' date='11 February 2010 - 09:52 AM' timestamp='1265907126' post='2174930']
I still don't understand how not immediately giving white peace to a group of alliances that attack you is anywhere close to the kind of crap that the Hegemony used to pull. The fact that we still haven't seen any excessive reparations and terms from CnG's side is proof positive that we are living in a different world.
[/quote]

Perhaps instead of reading what they wanted to in TOP's DoW and instead of talking about how Archon is a genius for pulling the trap...they should have realized it was a miscommunication on the part of their coalition leader, NpO.

Instead, C&G pursued the war on the grounds (ironically) that TOP was a threat and they needed to be stamped out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Letum' date='11 February 2010 - 11:54 AM' timestamp='1265907273' post='2174936']
And in retaliation, declarations of war were made by their friends/allies on Initiative members that weren't in the war yet.
[/quote]
So you're telling me that attacking the members of a bloc already militarily involved in a conflict is the exact same thing as attacking an uninvolved bloc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Nizzle' date='11 February 2010 - 11:58 AM' timestamp='1265907494' post='2174952']
Instead, C&G pursued the war on the grounds (ironically) that TOP was a threat and they needed to be stamped out.
[/quote]
I can't imagine where they would have gotten the idea that TOP might be a threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vilien' date='11 February 2010 - 04:58 PM' timestamp='1265907494' post='2174951']
So you're telling me that attacking the members of a bloc already militarily involved in a conflict is the exact same thing as attacking an uninvolved bloc?
[/quote]

I'm telling you of pre-emptive attacks on the Initiative. You're trying to pursue a political agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vilien' date='11 February 2010 - 09:59 AM' timestamp='1265907569' post='2174954']
I can't imagine where they would have gotten the idea that TOP might be a threat.
[/quote]

Probably from the same place TOP felt C&G would be a threat. A mix of OWF posting, back room talk, and the fact they would almost certainly end up on opposite sides in every war.

These justifications don't work for TOP and they don't work for C&G. You can't have it apply to one and not the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Letum' date='11 February 2010 - 12:00 PM' timestamp='1265907613' post='2174957']
I'm telling you of pre-emptive attacks on the Initiative. You're trying to pursue a political agenda.
[/quote]
I'm telling you that the Initiative was already involved in both wars while CnG was not involved in this one. I'm not sure how that means I'm pursuing a political agenda, but if you can pull two more generic retorts out of that bag you might win a prize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Nizzle' date='11 February 2010 - 05:56 PM' timestamp='1265907372' post='2174945']
...but the war they were joining had stopped.
[/quote]

What war was that again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Nizzle' date='11 February 2010 - 12:01 PM' timestamp='1265907672' post='2174958']
Probably from the same place TOP felt C&G would be a threat. A mix of OWF posting, back room talk, and the fact they would almost certainly end up on opposite sides in every war.

These justifications don't work for TOP and they don't work for C&G. You can't have it apply to one and not the other.
[/quote]
TOP felt CnG was a threat because TOP made the decision post-Karma War to align themselves opposite that bloc. TOP created an enemy out of thin air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='lebubu' date='11 February 2010 - 10:02 AM' timestamp='1265907762' post='2174962']
What war was that again?
[/quote]

Oh, right. There was nothing in the sort in their DoW except no CB. Silly me.

[quote name='Vilien' date='11 February 2010 - 10:05 AM' timestamp='1265907902' post='2174964']
TOP felt CnG was a threat because TOP made the decision post-Karma War to align themselves opposite that bloc. TOP created an enemy out of thin air.
[/quote]

Incidentally, TOP was always aligned opposite that bloc.

Insofar as them making an enemy out of thin air, certainly. No one provoked TOP after/during Karma war and certainly no one was forecasting sides for the next war (which squared TOP and C&G against each other) immediately following Karma. Selective memories are such a pain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×