The End. It's coming.

[hizzy]

[quote name='Chron' date='12 February 2010 - 06:08 AM' timestamp='1265940490' post='2176082']
And of course, if TOP/IRON rejected what they consider to be absurd terms, then the onus would be on them for continuing the conflict, and bringing an end to peace.

I guess my problem is that I define "peace" as being when both alliances accept terms and the end of fighting is confirmed, rather than when one side makes an innocuous query into whether or not there are actual terms on the table.

But I guess that just makes me jaded.
[/quote]

If MK is comfortable with continuing the war, then why would they initiate peace talks?

[Arcturus Jefferson]

TOP wasn't rolling MK back in the Citadel days because they were busy rolling whoever the NPO was rolling that day, to the consternation of everyone else in Citadel.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Arcturus Jefferson

[TehChron]

[quote name='hizzy' date='12 February 2010 - 02:10 AM' timestamp='1265940651' post='2176086']
If MK is comfortable with continuing the war, then why would they initiate peace talks?
[/quote]
Why initiate peace talks if they haven't even come up with any terms for surrender?

One wonders.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Chron

[The AUT]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='12 February 2010 - 02:10 AM' timestamp='1265940656' post='2176087']
TOP wasn't rolling MK back in the Citadel days because they were busy rolling whoever the NPO was rolling that day, to the consternation of everyone else in Citadel.
[/quote]

I bet the likes of MHA, FOK, Sparta and VE weren't...

Oh wait.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='The AUT' date='11 February 2010 - 09:20 PM' timestamp='1265941211' post='2176114']
I bet the likes of MHA, FOK, Sparta and VE weren't...

Oh wait.
[/quote]
4 of the alliances you mentioned weren't members of Citadel so

[hizzy]

[quote name='Chron' date='12 February 2010 - 06:11 AM' timestamp='1265940699' post='2176091']
Why initiate peace talks if they haven't even come up with any terms for surrender?

One wonders.
[/quote]

Maybe to get the ball rolling?

[TehChron]

[quote name='hizzy' date='12 February 2010 - 02:22 AM' timestamp='1265941324' post='2176118']
Maybe to get the ball rolling?
[/quote]
Why get the ball rolling if, according to SC, getting the ball rolling is dependent upon TOP/IRON coming to [i]them[/i] first?

That doesn't make sense.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Chron

[Sal Paradise]

[quote name='The AUT' date='11 February 2010 - 04:52 PM' timestamp='1265935957' post='2175959']
You do realize CnG vowed to handicap IRON and TOP permanently, right?
[/quote]

I haven't heard that. Well, that's not true. I just did, but it wasn't from a reliable source.


[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='11 February 2010 - 06:10 PM' timestamp='1265940656' post='2176087']
TOP wasn't rolling MK back in the Citadel days because they were busy rolling whoever the NPO was rolling that day, to the consternation of everyone else in Citadel.
[/quote]

Oh I bet they were losing tons of sleep.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Sal Paradise

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Arthur Blair' date='11 February 2010 - 10:35 AM' timestamp='1265902558' post='2174788']
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]

Freedom of speech, the rule of law (in the common law tradition), a world in which warfare may still happen, but one where it is justified and the peace given afterward reasonable. All these are things that your side have claimed that they were seeking at various times and have claimed that the other side does not.

Beating down two alliances to the point that they are permanently disabled goes against the rule of law on Planet Bob, particularly in light of their motivations for launching an attack (and no, they never actually had an advantage). If your desire to change the way of politics is conducted, reaching out to them to discuss what led to this war and finding ways to prevent it again in the future, along with a just peace, would be a major step forward.

[TehChron]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='12 February 2010 - 02:34 AM' timestamp='1265942082' post='2176144']
Freedom of speech, the rule of law (in the common law tradition), a world in which warfare may still happen, but one where it is justified and the peace given afterward reasonable. All these are things that your side have claimed that they were seeking at various times and have claimed that the other side does not.

Beating down two alliances to the point that they are permanently disabled goes against the rule of law on Planet Bob, particularly in light of their motivations for launching an attack (and no, they never actually had an advantage). If your desire to change the way of politics is conducted, reaching out to them to discuss what led to this war and finding ways to prevent it again in the future, along with a just peace, would be a major step forward.
[/quote]
Some folks have said that the paranoia is entirely on TOP's account, so surely dispelling those fantastically false notions on their part would ensure that there'd be no bad blood in the future.

I mean, it's only TOP and Co. that seem to have the paranoia "inference=fact" issue.

For once, Hal, I think you've made an excellent point. Let's see MK and co. be the bigger man, I'm sure after proving to TOP and its allies that you are will ensure something like this never happens again.

[Ejayrazz]

Good to see my fellow friend who made the Gremlins who they once were. Continue forward, brother. You are welcomed in The Ninjas anytime.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Ejayrazz

[deSouza]

Reason still exists in planet bob. You could always prolong your age in these realms, you know.

Edited February 12, 2010 by deSouza

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Sal Paradise' date='11 February 2010 - 09:31 PM' timestamp='1265941878' post='2176139']
Oh I bet they were losing tons of sleep.
[/quote]
Which "they"?

[Sal Paradise]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='11 February 2010 - 06:46 PM' timestamp='1265942777' post='2176166']
Which "they"?
[/quote]

"everyone else in Citadel"

[hizzy]

[quote name='Chron' date='12 February 2010 - 06:28 AM' timestamp='1265941735' post='2176133']
Why get the ball rolling if, according to SC, getting the ball rolling is dependent upon TOP/IRON coming to [i]them[/i] first?

That doesn't make sense.
[/quote]

Are you honestly asking me why TOP needs to contact CnG for peace if the whole thing depends on them contacting CnG for peace? Like, why do you need to work to get paid if working earns you money? Or, why do you need to drive to the store if the only way to get to the store is by driving?

I don't know how I can make this any simpler.

If TOP/IRON wants to find peace, they need to contact CnG first to get the ball rolling on the issue. CnG don't have terms pre-made because they're not the ones trying to get peace.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Sal Paradise' date='11 February 2010 - 09:48 PM' timestamp='1265942918' post='2176171']
"everyone else in Citadel"
[/quote]
If you meant "did we act on it", then no. However, discussions within Citadel.gov during, say, the GPA beatdown were mostly the FCC and Gramlins people lambasting the NPO and donning tinfoil hats while Saber and Reyne tried to make it sound like the NPO was the victim and it was right and just for TOP to assist their best ally. The bloc dynamics were really $%&@ed up until enough of the fire eaters had been bled out of the FCC in disgust (both at Citadel politics and FCC internal politics, which sort of fed each other).

So no, we didn't commit to overthrowing the NPO (though for most of us Citadel was formed to ward off threats from TOP's best ally). But a some of us were as angry and concerned about it as the people who came together to beat the crap out of the NPO in the K War. A fortuitous conclusion that is being undermined by this current war.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Arcturus Jefferson

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 09:27 AM' timestamp='1265902025' post='2174782']
You, as an ex-Citadel member, may recall me making this point to TOP on several occasions . That said, I don't really agree with you that this is comparable to the BLEU war. It is not paranoia about a future threat that led to the declaration, it is the certainty of an imminent one in an already live war. I think it's pretty certain that TOP won't go for a pre-emptive attack again having seen the fallout from this one, so the threat to C&G is actually [i]even less[/i] than it was before Polar started this little war.[/quote]

"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---and that, indeed, they would take advantage of any advantageous opportunity to do so. This is a war they have brought upon themselves."

that is pretty much the same reason that TOP/Grämlins declared on Polaris. because TOP felt that Polaris wanted to destroy TOP. so yes, i think i can honestly compare this to the SPW, though TOP was far smarter in the SPW and ensured that they had a huge coalition that could take on BLEU and CnG so that they could win.

[quote]Edit:

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]

"For our part, however, [b]much our reason to enter this war[/b] 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---and that, indeed, they would take advantage of any advantageous opportunity to do so. This is a war they have brought upon themselves."

key part bolded so that you can realize that they did not do this to support Polaris's war as much as they did it for their own reasons. that is from the TOP DoW.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 10:46 AM' timestamp='1265906780' post='2174918']
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.)
[/quote]

the other part that seems to be escaping notice is that TOP/IRON did plan this preemptive strike on their own. from everything i heard, TOP/IRON did not want to wait for IRON to declare in defense of NSO and then be hit for TOP to enter in defense of IRON. instead they planned the preemptive strike on their own. so despite it being part of a global war, they still planned a preemptive strike versus entering in defense of NSO and then IRON.

[quote name='Nizzle' date='11 February 2010 - 10:58 AM' timestamp='1265907494' post='2174952']
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.
[/quote]


"For our part, however, [b]much our reason to enter this war[/b] 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---and that, indeed, they would take advantage of any advantageous opportunity to do so. This is a war they have brought upon themselves."

i am not sure what else there is to read to know that TOP is a threat. it seems that TOP had CnG high on their list of alliances that they need to do harm to as well.

[quote name='Buds The Man' date='11 February 2010 - 11:46 AM' timestamp='1265910386' post='2175066']
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.
[/quote]

from what i have read/heard TOP came to Polaris for the exact intention of hitting CnG. so i am not entirely sure what you are attempting to say.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 05:10 PM' timestamp='1265929820' post='2175767']
I don't think my current alliance would appreciate that


There's only been one near miss on a global war since Karma, in which representatives of SF and C&G [b]directly attacked an ex-Hegemony alliance[/b], so that's hardly surprising.


Hey, no-one's taking my word on anything, why should I believe you on that? Considering I was in Citadel until not that long ago, I'm going to have to pull the 'evidence, please?' card on you there.

Also, you need to reread TOP's DoW, because they clearly state that they consider themselves to be declaring as part of the Polar side.
[/quote]

it was obviously in TOP's best interest to have them considered part of Polaris's side. it ensured that they would have some protection while they conducted a preemptive strike on a bloc that was not militarily involved in the war.

not to mention you keep forgetting that TOP stated that coming in on Polar's side was a minor reason not the major (i.e. more important reason) for their entrance. so fact is, their coming in on Polaris's side was not as important to TOP as hitting CnG. so do not keep stating that they entered solely because of Polaris or any such nonsense. this is not true nor is it the most important reason TOP gave. it is the minor reason as TOP stated themselves.

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='11 February 2010 - 08:34 PM' timestamp='1265942082' post='2176144']
Freedom of speech, the rule of law (in the common law tradition), a world in which warfare may still happen, but one where it is justified and the peace given afterward reasonable. All these are things that your side have claimed that they were seeking at various times and have claimed that the other side does not.

Beating down two alliances to the point that they are permanently disabled goes against the rule of law on Planet Bob, particularly in light of their motivations for launching an attack (and no, they never actually had an advantage). If your desire to change the way of politics is conducted, reaching out to them to discuss what led to this war and finding ways to prevent it again in the future, along with a just peace, would be a major step forward.
[/quote]

while i agree with this to a certain point, this is not the first time that TOP has preemptively attacked an alliance because they thought the alliance was out to harm TOP. so it is entirely understandable why CnG are hesitant on taking TOP at their word and giving them peace at this moment. though personally i don't like the thought of permanently disabling any alliance.

as for the motivations of TOP being proven true due to CnG not wanting to give them peace yet is kinda ridiculous. i doubt any alliance who was preemptively struck would even consider peace within the first 2 weeks of war unless the alliance who struck had the larger coalition on their side.

[TehChron]

[quote name='hizzy' date='12 February 2010 - 02:53 AM' timestamp='1265943221' post='2176182']
Are you honestly asking me why TOP needs to contact CnG for peace if the whole thing depends on them contacting CnG for peace? Like, why do you need to work to get paid if working earns you money? Or, why do you need to drive to the store if the only way to get to the store is by driving?

I don't know how I can make this any simpler.

If TOP/IRON wants to find peace, they need to contact CnG first to get the ball rolling on the issue. CnG don't have terms pre-made because they're not the ones trying to get peace.
[/quote]
[quote name='hizzy' date='12 February 2010 - 02:10 AM' timestamp='1265940651' post='2176086']
If MK is comfortable with continuing the war, then why would they initiate peace talks?
[/quote]
Good question.

Only the subject of that sentence was MK, and based my responses off that. Vague sentence ftl.

[Prime minister Johns]

Its like I have always said, don't believe what people say, believe what they do.
If you want to see the true character of the victors in this war watch what they do when the surrender terms are handed down to get a real idea of their motives.

Because words are just so much empty hot air, but actions, they can speak volumes about the true intentions of a person or alliance.

[Schattenmann]

Syz, I hope your wars will give you time to clear your head of this quitting nonsense.

[TehChron]

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' date='12 February 2010 - 03:44 AM' timestamp='1265946253' post='2176335']
Its like I have always said, don't believe what people say, believe what they do.
If you want to see the true character of the victors in this war watch what they do when the surrender terms are handed down to get a real idea of their motives.

Because words are just so much empty hot air, but actions, they can speak volumes about the true intentions of a person or alliance.
[/quote]
Haha.

Really, that is just so true. I mean, hilariously so. Thank you for saying that.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Chron

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='11 February 2010 - 09:24 PM' timestamp='1265945068' post='2176245']
from what i have read/heard TOP came to Polaris for the exact intention of hitting CnG. so i am not entirely sure what you are attempting to say.
[/quote]
I'm not sure what you read/heard but the idea we entered onto Polar's side just to get CnG is just false. Take it from one of the two people that was speaking for TOP during that time. What Bud said is correct.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Feanor Noldorin

[Fernando12]

[quote name='Sal Paradise' date='11 February 2010 - 08:31 PM' timestamp='1265941878' post='2176139']
I haven't heard that. Well, that's not true. I just did, but it wasn't from a reliable source.
[/quote]

Have you been reading at all? You prolly just dislike Aut so feel you have to take a shot at him.

CnG side has stated things such as making TOP/IRON surrender technological superiority so that situations like this don't happen again.

Also, page 1 [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80555&view=findpost&p=2174697"]post #7[/url] - everyone here is so predictable

And also, no u to all of you

Edited February 12, 2010 by Fernando12

[Trace]

[quote name='Chron' date='11 February 2010 - 09:28 PM' timestamp='1265941735' post='2176133']
Why get the ball rolling if, according to SC, getting the ball rolling is dependent upon TOP/IRON coming to [i]them[/i] first?

That doesn't make sense.
[/quote]

Ok, look at it this way.

TOP/IRON attack us.

We fight them. They fight us.

It will continue like that, until one side feels they have lost and are willing to admit this. When they realize this, they then approach the other side and tell them this, and from there work on brokering terms.

MK doesn't feel like it has won yet. We also don't feel like we've lost.

Until we feel like we've won or lost, we're not going to approach them for terms, because odds are they feel the same.


This thought process goes ditto for them.

We both know you know that's how it works, and are just debating semantics to be a thorn in our side because you can, so hopefully this guide to peace for dummies can enlighten you.

[Joe Izuzu]

It pains me to have to say this, but....


Listen to Trace.