The End. It's coming.

[Nizzle]

[quote name='der_ko' date='11 February 2010 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1265916804' post='2175296']
\m/, NpO, TOP and IRON have all acted like idiots in this war, the rest of us, not so much.
[/quote]

I wouldn't expect a different answer.

[Sephiroth]

Despite the spread out NS differences in sides TOP is still winning against CnG.

Edit: Or can still win in my opinion.

Edited February 11, 2010 by Methrage

[Ogaden]

[quote name='Kortal' date='11 February 2010 - 11:12 AM' timestamp='1265915578' post='2175262']
Wow switching right over from calling Syzygy an idiot to calling TOP/IRON idiots :|

Simple [b]fact[/b] here is that no one above the status of regular member in TOP believes (don't go dredging up a post on the owf now, that's hardly where it counts) that white peace is attainable/should be sought above all else.

All we have to wait for is for when they're able to put aside their pride and actually communicate as such to MK
[/quote]

Your words, not mine

[Bob Janova]

[quote]- TOP/IRON shot first
Conclusion I:
- There can't be white peace. Surrender and reparations are *obviously* going to be part of peace terms if they lose this engagement.[/quote]
I do not agree with your conclusion. NpO shot first on the initial front, and there was white peace on that front.

The reason a white peace is a reasonable thing to push is that it has already been applied to almost every other front in the war.

This ridiclous analogy about people beating each other and walking away ... the true analogy is that TOP and IRON saw C&G picking up a bar stool and waving it over NSO's head, so they smacked C&G before he could swing. (And NSO was already participating in a mass brawl.) Analogies aren't really helpful but let's not claim that C&G are innocents just caught up in the crossfire.

[Krack]

[quote]I believe TOP and IRON would instantly stop this war, if given the chance.[/quote]

That's not an uncommon reaction when you realize you made a mistake, started something you can't finish, and you're going to lose because of it.

[Nizzle]

[quote name='Krack' date='11 February 2010 - 01:17 PM' timestamp='1265919427' post='2175374']
That's not an uncommon reaction when you realize you made a mistake, started something you can't finish, and you're going to lose because of it.
[/quote]

Har har.

The reason they would stop the war is because the cause for them entering was stopped. Well done.

[Bob]

BobJanova, you are becoming funnier by the day. Keep trying.

In terms of DAC, they are all stupid, you should have stayed out. This is sad to see.

Also, attacking MK after saying "I would have done the same for you", xfd. well played sir. !@#$%^&*.

Edited February 11, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[Zero-One]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='11 February 2010 - 02:20 PM' timestamp='1265919656' post='2175381']

Also, attacking MK after saying "I would have done the same for you", xfd. well played sir. !@#$%^&*.
[/quote]
I believe him. If you know Syz, you would too.

[Nizzle]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='11 February 2010 - 01:20 PM' timestamp='1265919656' post='2175381']
BobJanova, you are becoming funnier by the day. Keep trying.

In terms of DAC, they are all stupid, you should have stayed out. This is sad to see.

Also, attacking MK after saying "I would have done the same for you", xfd. well played sir. !@#$%^&*.
[/quote]

It's sad to see there is no originality anymore.

I feel like I'm watching another sizable alliance on a winning side march it's uniform membership across the discussions taking place on Planet Bob.

[neneko]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 09:09 PM' timestamp='1265918994' post='2175363']
I do not agree with your conclusion. NpO shot first on the initial front, and there was white peace on that front.

The reason a white peace is a reasonable thing to push is that it has already been applied to almost every other front in the war.

This ridiclous analogy about people beating each other and walking away ... the true analogy is that TOP and IRON saw C&G picking up a bar stool and waving it over NSO's head, so they smacked C&G before he could swing. (And NSO was already participating in a mass brawl.) Analogies aren't really helpful but let's not claim that C&G are innocents just caught up in the crossfire.
[/quote]
I find it a little silly that you try over and over to claim that TOP didn't attack because they had anything against cng when it clearly says they do in their DoW.

CnG was not involved in the war when we were attacked. No matter how much you try to circle around it you will not be able to change this fact. CnG had ties to both sides and CnG as a whole was not set to attack any alliance. You're trying to make a case by us being allied to the 'wrong' people and guilty by association is a pretty rotten argument.

[Nizzle]

[quote name='Zero-One' date='11 February 2010 - 01:24 PM' timestamp='1265919847' post='2175388']
I believe him. If you know Syz, you would too.
[/quote]

It's not beneficial for him to agree, silly.

[Nizzle]

[quote name='neneko' date='11 February 2010 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1265920009' post='2175394']
I find it a little silly that you try over and over to claim that TOP didn't attack because they had anything against cng when it clearly says they do in their DoW.

CnG was not involved in the war when we were attacked. No matter how much you try to circle around it you will not be able to change this fact. CnG had ties to both sides and CnG as a whole was not set to attack any alliance. You're trying to make a case by us being allied to the 'wrong' people and guilty by association is a pretty rotten argument.
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure he is making the argument that C&G already picked a side and assisted them in planning and whatnot. I swear he said that somewhere.

[WarriorConcept]

[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]

If you hadn't asked polar to jump in you would have had an easy out. Just because you wish to stay until IRON leaves is not the fault of your opponents.

[Scorponok]

Let everyone have their fun, (OOC; this is a game, play it!) when everyone is bored, we'll rebuild and do it again sometime.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]CnG as a whole was not set to attack any alliance[/quote]


[quote]CnG was not involved in the war when we were attacked. No matter how much you try to circle around it you will not be able to change this fact.[/quote]
I believe this is a suitable moment for a 'no u'. C&G [i]were[/i] involved (non-militarily).

[quote]You're trying to make a case by us being allied to the 'wrong' people and guilty by association is a pretty rotten argument.[/quote]
No I'm not. You should probably read my posts more.

[quote]I find it a little silly that you try over and over to claim that TOP didn't attack because they had anything against cng when it clearly says they do in their DoW.[/quote]
What I am claiming is that TOP didn't attack you mainly because of that. They attacked because they wanted to make sure their coalition was in a winning position. I'm sure the fact that they don't like you, as stated in the DoW, influenced their choice of targets, or at the very least made them particularly pleased that C&G was the main enemy force that needed dealing with. But the fact is that they declared as part of a coalition which you had chosen to oppose, and if that hadn't been the case, you would not have been a target for any alliance in the Polar coalition.

[Kzoppistan]

Some interesting posts. I admire the OP for stating it like he sees it.

IMO, if the TOP coalition were to offer peace, it would be in CnG's best interest to accept it. Even if CnG wanted try to punish TOP by continuing war, they will lose a tremendous amount of resources doing so - disproportionate to the damages done when you consider it would be easier to take peace and then build with an eye towards outmaneuvering TOP at a later date if they felt TOP were such a threat.

A wise general picks the place of the battle and moves the circumstances towards having the greater advantage, right now neither have the advantage so it will only be a circus of mutual destruction.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote]and if that hadn't been the case, you would not have been a target for any alliance in the Polar coalition. [/quote]
That's a horrible argument. I don't know the level of involvement that CnG alliances had with alliances at war with Polar, but you should let your argument rest on that and not "we wouldn't have attacked you if you hadn't deserved it, therefore you deserved it."

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 03:36 PM' timestamp='1265920585' post='2175418']



What I am claiming is that TOP didn't attack you mainly because of that. They attacked because they wanted to make sure their coalition was in a winning position. I'm sure the fact that they don't like you, as stated in the DoW, influenced their choice of targets, or at the very least made them particularly pleased that C&G was the main enemy force that needed dealing with. But the fact is that they declared as part of a coalition which you had chosen to oppose, and if that hadn't been the case, you would not have been a target for any alliance in the Polar coalition.
[/quote]

CnG was working towards peace the whole time and it was made that very night. Some opposition to that coalition, right?

[neneko]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1265920585' post='2175418']



I believe this is a suitable moment for a 'no u'. C&G [i]were[/i] involved (non-militarily).
[/quote]
I'm sure you have some kind of fact to back this up. Literally anything will do. No? Well okay I'll just take your word for it then.


[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1265920585' post='2175418']
No I'm not. You should probably read my posts more.


What I am claiming is that TOP didn't attack you mainly because of that. They attacked because they wanted to make sure their coalition was in a winning position. I'm sure the fact that they don't like you, as stated in the DoW, influenced their choice of targets, or at the very least made them particularly pleased that C&G was the main enemy force that needed dealing with. But the fact is that they declared as part of a coalition which you had chosen to oppose, and if that hadn't been the case, you would not have been a target for any alliance in the Polar coalition.
[/quote]
We had not choosen to oppose anyone. We were opposed to this whole war to begin with wich grub can testify to and naturally we were annoyed with polar for going through with the war anyway. We had however not picked any side in the conflict. Until you have something to back up that claim with you have no case here.

The closest thing you got is that we were a threat to NSO due to being allied to the people they hit. That's guilt by association though so I wouldn't call that a very strong argument.

[Bob Janova]

As I said to someone already, I'm not going to log dump or tell you access lists and things because that would be a breach of confidence. You can ask people in your government or high coalition positions of you want to know the extent of C&G's prior involvement.

I just noticed your sig ... well played. However, 'less than inevitable' in this case was around 95% (as I later said in that same thread).

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 04:10 PM' timestamp='1265922632' post='2175468']
As I said to someone already, I'm not going to log dump or tell you access lists and things because that would be a breach of confidence. You can ask people in your government or high coalition positions of you want to know the extent of C&G's prior involvement.

I just noticed your sig ... well played. However, 'less than inevitable' in this case was around 95% (as I later said in that same thread).
[/quote]

CnG was attempting to get NpO's part of the war to peace out and succeeded. I suppose that was justification enough for TOP/IRON to attack them then.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 03:27 PM' timestamp='1265902025' post='2174782']


No, no they didn't. They declared war on C&G as a pre-emptive attack on the reserves of the opposing coalition, as part of an ongoing coalition war.
[/quote]

This is quite simply not true. That is all.

[Fantastico]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' date='11 February 2010 - 02:44 PM' timestamp='1265921089' post='2175431']
CnG was working towards peace the whole time and it was made that very night. Some opposition to that coalition, right?
[/quote]


If C&G leaders were really working for peace why did they try to claim a second war with the TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN attacks when they knew ahead of time that those attacks were planned as a part of the war? That's why playing this "we were working for peace" line is so disingenuous and it's also why defining this as a second war is so important to people like you.

[neneko]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 10:10 PM' timestamp='1265922632' post='2175468']
As I said to someone already, I'm not going to log dump or tell you access lists and things because that would be a breach of confidence. You can ask people in your government or high coalition positions of you want to know the extent of C&G's prior involvement.

I just noticed your sig ... well played. However, 'less than inevitable' in this case was around 95% (as I later said in that same thread).
[/quote]
I think I actually know what you've seen and if I'm right that doesn't implicate cng as a whole. It's not even enough proof to say for sure that any cng signatory would join in the war.

The fact here is that no matter what suspicions top had we were not involved in the war and there was quite alot of people within cng that wanted to support polar due to them being a direct ally to some of us. That all changed when TOP took it upon themselves to make this decision for us of course but I think I can claim that you had no way of being sure of cngs involvement in the war because it had not reached a final decision.

Now you won't take my word for it over whatever it is someone else told you and I won't take your word for it either so this will lead nowhere. What I do know though is that you don't hold any proof of any cng involvement in the big bad coalition because such a thing doesn't exist.

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='Fantastico' date='11 February 2010 - 04:16 PM' timestamp='1265922974' post='2175486']
If C&G leaders were really working for peace why did they try to claim a second war with the TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN attacks when they knew ahead of time that those attacks were planned as a part of the war? That's why playing this "we were working for peace" line is so disingenuous and it's also why defining this as a second war is so important to people like you.
[/quote]

What? Maybe because CnG was not involved militarily in any front but was instead attacked by other alliances not involved on any front. If IRON and TOP wanted to be involved through the current war they would have went through their normal treaty ties instead of attacking the people not fighting at all.

How is working for peace disingenuous anyway? The polar/\m/ front was peaced out.