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='(DAC)Syzygy' date='11 February 2010 - 04:45 PM' timestamp='1265906730' post='2174915']
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. :)

[/quote]

Spot on, although I do not expect anyone to take any notice of it. Rulers of Planet Bob are to one dimensional - basically they do not recognise of acknowledge what you have just stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually that was more to do with SF and by association C&G taking offence to TOP's assistance in Karma and overblowing some diplomatic faux pas. But I digress.

Re pre-emptive strikes: In GW2, GATO declared on all the Initiative, even though many of them weren't yet fighting. In GW3, Legion memorably declared on TOP (and I think NAAC on FAN) even though only NPO was engaged at that time. The justification for the latter was very similar to the situation here: the Initiative target list had been leaked and Aegis pre-emptively struck to gain the attacker advantage on alliances they knew would be their enemies the next day. (Like this, that was a poor strategic move, but that's beside the point.)

[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?[/quote]
Actually, yes. A bloc isn't some magic construction that changes everything. Initiative alliances were allied to the members that were at war, were not at war themselves but were involved in the planning and logistics of the war, and were preparing to enter. C&G alliances were allied to Superfriends, who were at war, were not at war themselves but were involved in the planning and logistics of the war, and were preparing to enter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 11:10 AM' timestamp='1265908239' post='2174976']
Actually, yes. A bloc isn't some magic construction that changes everything. Initiative alliances were allied to the members that were at war, were not at war themselves but were involved in the planning and logistics of the war, and were preparing to enter. C&G alliances were allied to Superfriends, who were at war, were not at war themselves but were involved in the planning and logistics of the war, and were preparing to enter.
[/quote]


This. The CnG justification of "we werent fighting, and you don't know we would have fought" for framing this as an aggressive war, applies to entire blocs just as it applies to members of a bloc. They are all bound by treaties, and they have to choose to honor them or not. So in essence, it is the exact same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vilien' date='11 February 2010 - 05:02 PM' timestamp='1265907757' post='2174961']
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.
[/quote]

You requested examples of preemptive attacks, and I gave them to you. Your deliberately combative manner is not appreciated, but it is understandable given the fact that I am a Pacifican.

You are indeed pursuing a political agenda, because you were initially trying to make some form of point by trying to claim that no pre-emptive attacks against the Hegemony had occurred, and once that point had been disproven by facts, you attempted to cast it away by trivialising said facts and, most infuriatingly, making a strawman out of my post and making the implication that I "told you" something I did not.

In case the above was not clear enough, I never tried to equivocate the GWII/III situation to anything. I can understand how you might assume I did, given the tag I wear, but my post was intended for informative and not argumentative reasons.

Also, since I desire to remain friendly and do not wish this gross misunderstanding on your behalf to sour anything, I should point out that the wording of your last few replies makes the tacit implication that you would not find anything wrong with pre-emptive attacks on non-belligerents, given the pre-condition that they were binding military partners of a belligerent. I am quite sure you did not mean that, so I would advise adjusting your replies to any future references of the events I highlighted, because they will be brought up again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Nizzle' date='11 February 2010 - 12:08 PM' timestamp='1265908091' post='2174971']
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.
[/quote]
You'd be right for once if you lost that sarcastic tone. Complaints and Grievances has been completely reactive in its foreign affairs policy post-Karma War. Any involvement by their bloc has been spurred by the actions of a couple of idiots who couldn't restrain themselves. There was no real hostility to TOP coming from CnG government, and you'd know that if you weren't the same kind of person who thinks that people who forecast sides in hypothetical wars are reliable sources on who has a rivalry with whom.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 12:10 PM' timestamp='1265908239' post='2174976']
Actually, yes. A bloc isn't some magic construction that changes everything. Initiative alliances were allied to the members that were at war, were not at war themselves but were involved in the planning and logistics of the war, and were preparing to enter. C&G alliances were allied to Superfriends, who were at war, were not at war themselves but were involved in the planning and logistics of the war, and were preparing to enter.
[/quote]
So where are those CnG target lists?

[quote name='Letum' date='11 February 2010 - 12:13 PM' timestamp='1265908428' post='2174983']
You are indeed pursuing a political agenda, because you were initially trying to make some form of point by trying to claim that no pre-emptive attacks against the Hegemony had occurred, and once that point had been disproven by facts, you attempted to cast it away by trivialising said facts and, most infuriatingly, making a strawman out of my post and making the implication that I "told you" something I did not.

In case the above was not clear enough, I never tried to equivocate the GWII/III situation to anything. I can understand how you might assume I did, given the tag I wear, but my post was intended for informative and not argumentative reasons.
[/quote]
The point I made was that unless you considered both situations equivalent your statement was irrelevant to the point that I was making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Moridin' date='11 February 2010 - 10:01 AM' timestamp='1265900472' post='2174757']
What I really can't believe about this whole situation is that I'm actually defending C&G. C&G for the most part are a bunch of extremely irritating alliances that all in all, I really have no love for at all. Yet, somehow you people manage to throw out such ridiculous accusations that I can't help but call you out on them.
[/quote]
The Former Vox Conundrum. The dummies make us pick between dummies while we know there's so much more. What's a revolutionary to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vilien' date='11 February 2010 - 10:13 AM' timestamp='1265908437' post='2174984']
You'd be right for once if you lost that sarcastic tone. Complaints and Grievances has been completely reactive in its foreign affairs policy post-Karma War. Any involvement by their bloc has been spurred by the actions of a couple of idiots who couldn't restrain themselves. There was no real hostility to TOP coming from CnG government, and you'd know that if you weren't the same kind of person who thinks that people who forecast sides in hypothetical wars are reliable sources on who has a rivalry with whom.
[/quote]

Public opinion is often the best indication of how things are going. Not the random poster, but the general trends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='11 February 2010 - 10:43 AM' timestamp='1265902993' post='2174804']
Unfortunately I believe we (NSO) are officially fighting on the D-Bag Front at present and therefore are in for a very long war.[/quote]
Most honest statement thus far.

Hats off to you, sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Nizzle' date='11 February 2010 - 12:25 PM' timestamp='1265909115' post='2175011']
Public opinion is often the best indication of how things are going. Not the random poster, but the general trends.
[/quote]
Public opinion is a very poor indicator of how things are going. When did purple get rolled again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as always and forever, the side that is seeming to do well is calling for punishment in surrender terms, whereas the side seeming to do not as well is calling for leniency.

I wonder, if TOP had the upper hand right now, whether they would be quite so keen on white peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vilien' date='11 February 2010 - 10:02 AM' timestamp='1265907757' post='2174961']
I'm telling you that the Initiative was already involved in both wars...
[/quote]

FAN was not involved in GW3 until Legion and NAAC attacked us. We issued a [url=http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/index.php?showtopic=59084&hl=]Declaration of Support[/url] and two days later were attacked and responded with our [url=http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/index.php?showtopic=59504&hl=]recognition of hostilities[/url]. Our allies were in the war, but we were not.

That isn't to say Legion and NAAC were wrong in hitting us. We were an obvious threat. The DoS clearly stated we were a threat, as if there was any doubt. They made the correct decision. They either had to sit out or fight us, so they brought the fight to us. And really even if they tried to sit out at some point we would have likely just said "&$@! it" and jumped them. Shoot first and shoot to kill. They got half of it right.

Whether or not this has any correlation to whatever the hell is going on now I can't say, but dems da facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='mpol777' date='11 February 2010 - 12:29 PM' timestamp='1265909391' post='2175023']
Whether or not this has any correlation to whatever the hell is going on now I can't say, but dems da facts.
[/quote]
Which is what I said earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lamuella' date='11 February 2010 - 12:29 PM' timestamp='1265909357' post='2175021']
as always and forever, the side that is seeming to do well is calling for punishment in surrender terms, whereas the side seeming to do not as well is calling for leniency.

I wonder, if TOP had the upper hand right now, whether they would be quite so keen on white peace.
[/quote]
It was understood pre-war TOP wanted nothing at its conclusion and were pushing all to do the same. So i can say YES it was there intent on WP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vilien' date='11 February 2010 - 05:13 PM' timestamp='1265908437' post='2174984']
The point I made was that unless you considered both situations equivalent your statement was irrelevant to the point that I was making.
[/quote]

You did not specify that the degree of accuracy in the expectation of the non-belligerent's future involvement was a factor in qualifying your requested examples of preemptive attacks for inclusion in "your point". Given that evaluation of such accuracy would, at best, be the product of speculation, It would not be logical to assume that you desired such either, as speculation-based selection factors do not lend themselves well to argumentative debate.

I acknowledge that the speculative nature of that factor makes it easy for it to be used as a deliberate exclusion tool of examples that run contrary to the political underpinning of the point being made. From a psychological perspective, it would be reasonable to assume that you would take advantage of that factor, based on your political interests and the convention of behaviour in our world. I judged that it would be unfair to deny you the opportunity of accurate information based on an assumption that would, in part, be based on prejudice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vilien' date='11 February 2010 - 10:27 AM' timestamp='1265909267' post='2175018']
Public opinion is a very poor indicator of how things are going. When did purple get rolled again?
[/quote]

...Being a good indicator does not indicate 100% accuracy. That's why it's called an indicator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Buds The Man' date='11 February 2010 - 12:31 PM' timestamp='1265909479' post='2175027']
It was understood pre-war TOP wanted nothing at its conclusion and were pushing all to do the same. So i can say YES it was there intent on WP.
[/quote]

well, that's obviously not true. They weren't intent on white peace and nothing more than white peace, otherwise they wouldn't have declared in the first place.

They may have had the stated intention of getting white peace after giving the other side a thumping, but that's different from wanting nothing but white peace at all. They wanted to hand down punishment, otherwise why start a war they were not compelled to start?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicely done speech, I'm glad to see you supporting TOP and sticking by your friends who need it.

o/ Syzygy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Letum' date='11 February 2010 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1265909617' post='2175036']
You did not specify that the degree of accuracy in the expectation of the non-belligerent's future involvement was a factor in qualifying your requested examples of preemptive attacks for inclusion in "your point". Given that evaluation of such accuracy would, at best, be the product of speculation, It would not be logical to assume that you desired such either, as speculation-based selection factors do not lend themselves well to argumentative debate.

I acknowledge that the speculative nature of that factor makes it easy for it to be used as a deliberate exclusion tool of examples that run contrary to the political underpinning of the point being made. From a psychological perspective, it would be reasonable to assume that you would take advantage of that factor, based on your political interests and the convention of behaviour in our world. I judged that it would be unfair to deny you the opportunity of accurate information based on an assumption that would, in part, be based on prejudice.
[/quote]
Then it would behoove those to whom this topic is speculation to consider their accusations carefully before they are made, especially when they argue with those for whom the topic is not speculative.

[quote name='Nizzle' date='11 February 2010 - 12:35 PM' timestamp='1265909722' post='2175041']
...Being a good indicator does not indicate 100% accuracy. That's why it's called an indicator.
[/quote]
Your "indicators" are very seldom accurate and I'd be extremely disappointed to hear that an alliance as talented as TOP would use "public opinion" as a means to judge foreign policy moves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' date='11 February 2010 - 12:27 PM' timestamp='1265909236' post='2175017']
Most honest statement thus far.

Hats off to you, sir.
[/quote]
With the obvious possibility that I may be putting my foot in my mouth I believe you misinterpreted what I meant with that statement considering the current Nordreich alignment.

I meant that those I am fighting specifically, primarily Fark (although some CSN people are trying to give Randomly Jim a run for his money), make up the D-Bag Front, with whom we are fighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Fernando12' date='11 February 2010 - 08:14 AM' timestamp='1265897641' post='2174697']
CnG - [b]NO U![/b], Ha bold letters with an exclamatiion point!
:smug:
[/quote]
C&G- Improving the standards of "no u" debate since 2010. :awesome:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lamuella' date='11 February 2010 - 12:35 PM' timestamp='1265909736' post='2175042']
well, that's obviously not true. They weren't intent on white peace and nothing more than white peace, otherwise they wouldn't have declared in the first place.

They may have had the stated intention of getting white peace after giving the other side a thumping, but that's different from wanting nothing but white peace at all. They wanted to hand down punishment, otherwise why start a war they were not compelled to start?
[/quote]
Ok let me try this again. TOP did not come in to the coalition with the express intent to hit C&G, that was my impression and as I worked with them very closely Im very sure its an accurate one. They wanted WP at the conclusion because many of us felt it was escecleted over BS reasons and many were simply there due to treaty obligations. Pure and simple TOP did not start this war they are only in it because they were a part of a coalition. SPIN this any way you want this is a fact that so many conveniatly try to push down or simply ignore but the fact remains TOP acted in accordance with a coalition action and to spin it any other way is ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='11 February 2010 - 12:38 PM' timestamp='1265909934' post='2175050']
With the obvious possibility that I may be putting my foot in my mouth I believe you misinterpreted what I meant with that statement considering the current Nordreich alignment.

I meant that those I am fighting specifically, primarily Fark (although some CSN people are trying to give Randomly Jim a run for his money), make up the D-Bag Front, with whom we are fighting.
[/quote]
There has been no misunderstanding, I simply appreciate frank honesty.

(Or perhaps we're each misinterpreting the other. Since statements at cross-purposes rarely end well, I'll let this go.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vilien' date='11 February 2010 - 10:36 AM' timestamp='1265909769' post='2175044']
Your "indicators" are very seldom accurate and I'd be extremely disappointed to hear that an alliance as talented as TOP would use "public opinion" as a means to judge foreign policy moves.
[/quote]

I suppose I'll mark this down in the same column as "TOP had no CB".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Aimee Mann' date='11 February 2010 - 09:28 AM' timestamp='1265898514' post='2174714']
How delightfully self-important; it's as though you think your singular nation is going to turn the tide of the war or something. I will have to remember to make one of these whenever I next go to war for an alliance.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]I really doubt he thinks that. However sometimes a man has to make a stand for what he believes right. I am sure you know that. I am quite certain that you were not among the masses shouting that the low strength nations that founded Vox were not going to change the outcome of the war. You understood what was going on here, and what DAC is doing here is along those same principles.[/color]

Share this post


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

×