Jump to content

The End. It's coming.


Syzygy

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 586
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Kindom of Goon' date='11 February 2010 - 03:20 PM' timestamp='1265901644' post='2174773']
I could understand this argument if we were into the second month of war but it's not even been two weeks yet.
[/quote]

I think it may be due to the fact that the destruction being caused is unprecedented. :nuke:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 09:57 AM' timestamp='1265900262' post='2174754']
Good to see you back Syz. TOP's choice of method to enter the war, and the fact that I have a good new home, means I can't really justify joining you, but no-one can say you don't put your money where your mouth is. Good luck finding many enemies in range though ;)


Step 1: ditch paranoia
Step 2: stop acting like the Hegemony
Step 3: yes

TOP did not 'come for you with a flimsy CB', and they will not 'come for you' again unless you are lined up in an enemy coalition again.
[/quote]

Your loyalties have usurped your reason, Bob. It is entirely unjustifiable to compare those now at war with TOP with the hegemony. At the end of the day, no matter how much back channel justification you try to give, TOP declared war on the entirety of CnG with no CB at all. If anyone but TOP had done this, you would be their most vocal opponent.

The truth is that whatever bad blood there was between these two sides previously has not been quelled by TOP's knee-jerk declaration of war. If anything, they have forced the issue to become deadly serious. TOP declared CnG their enemies, and I fail to see how it is paranoia to think that if CnG peaced them out now that they would be opening the door to reprisal months down the road.

I am glad to see Moridin, who along with his comrades liberated me of a couple thousand infrastructure so far, can step outside his personal distaste for much of CnG and see the writing on the wall. At best, TOP took a huge political gamble that defied courtesy and convention in war, and at worst used a tumultuous political time as an excuse to attack the group of alliances they saw as most threatening to their priviledged position on Planet Bob. Either way, C&G would be fools not to carry this war through and see it to some form of adequate conclusion whether victory or loss. This issue must come to a head now, that much TOP has assured.

I shed no tears for the loss of TOP's infrastructure or cash reserves, and nor should you.

EDIT: I appreciate that you are doing what you think is right, Syz. You do have to stick by your friends, just don't lose sight of the fact of how we got here. Sometimes you best serve your friends by being critical of them. But you seem well-aware of that. ;)

EDIT#2: Actually, Hal, if you look at the incomprehensibility of IRON's treaties, it reminds me a great deal of that paralyzed period of Hegemony stagnation. The fact that TOP chose IRON over all others is tell-tale. I think branding anyone the Hegemony in this situation is misleading, but "we thought you were coming for us later at some point" is not the kind of CB that gets you white peace nor should it. TOP and IRON are not angels in this so let's stop that right now.

Edited by Drostan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]so maybe TOP/IRON should have stopped being paranoid in the first place and invested trust in CnG[/quote]
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.

Edit:
[quote]TOP declared war on the entirety of CnG with no CB at all[/quote]
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.

Edited by Bob Janova
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares. It is your nation getting shot up cause of the asinine stuff Crymson pulled. Like others have said, it's not like your nation will flip the odds in their direction. Stop behaving like you are important, cause frankly, you are not. You are just someone who craves attention, you are no better than RV or the AUT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='kriekfreak' date='11 February 2010 - 04:28 PM' timestamp='1265902084' post='2174783']
Who cares. It is your nation getting shot up cause of the asinine stuff Crymson pulled. Like others have said, it's not like your nation will flip the odds in their direction. Stop behaving like you are important, cause frankly, you are not. You are just someone who craves attention, you are no better than RV or the AUT.
[/quote]

This, coming from you, is just golden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 February 2010 - 02:57 PM' timestamp='1265900262' post='2174754']
Good to see you back Syz. TOP's choice of method to enter the war, and the fact that I have a good new home, means I can't really justify joining you, but no-one can say you don't put your money where your mouth is. Good luck finding many enemies in range though ;)


Step 1: ditch paranoia
Step 2: stop acting like the Hegemony
Step 3: yes

TOP did not 'come for you with a flimsy CB', and they will not 'come for you' again unless you are lined up in an enemy coalition again.
[/quote]

Your three steps are suggesting you're in a reality where TOP didn't form a coalition 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?

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='11 February 2010 - 03:12 PM' timestamp='1265901173' post='2174767']
I see this from C&G and you seem to fail to grasp a very plausible alternative: TOP and IRON shot first not because they are aggressive alliances that want to restore some old regime, but that they feared the current regime would not allow them to continue to be successful alliances and would come up with some CB or other to beat them down.

Yours was/is the stronger position, even if NPO is on the field. That will only continue to be the case so long as you live by the standards you claim to uphold. You are currently at best lacking in that area and eliminating TOP and IRON (whether literally or as a viable threat) is no guarantee that someone else won't also put you to the sword. Ask NpO.
[/quote]

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Arthur Blair' date='11 February 2010 - 04:35 PM' 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]

It's a far jump to deduct TOPs future position from this war. It's not like we dont realize this wasnt how one should go about it.

But i guess we should fight this war first before we come to conclusions about the next one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, Bob, so you believe that it was a Polar trap then? Because that war was being peaced out at the very same time TOP/IRON declared in solidarity. haha. This position is insane. As I said, we can all gesticulate wildly about what backroom stuff we [i]claim[/i] happened, but there is a huge gulf between that and what concrete actions are taken.

TOP was afraid the STA/Kronos incident would get them into war with CnG as well. TOP's been !@#$%-footing around CnG and whispering in the shadows forever.

But what it boils down to is: what actually happened? CnG did not get involved in the original war because that war ended, however, TOP and IRON declared an offensive war whose OP had no particular CB in it.

I repeat, had another alliance done this, you would never accept it on faith that it was a legitimate CB.

I am not in the habit of trusting people who go out of their way to escalate wars and then complain when it blows up in their face. Especially after they sold my own alliance down the river to avoid just such a war only a couple of months earlier.

So Bob, who were the aggressors in this war in your opinion? CnG? lol.

EDIT: If a set of powerful alliances like TOP/IRON attacked me with the CB (or lack thereof) that was used here, I would be looking to strike a nearly crippling blow if I could deliver it. Because obviously they hold deep hostilities towards me and mine, and my obligations to protect them demand it. They made the aggressive choice, and there are consequences.

P.S. - I heard FoA was planning to attack Umbrella/GOD and that's why \m/ started their war on them. 2legitright?

Edited by Drostan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, and if TOP had curbed their enthusiasm just a little bit this whole thing would've been avoided [img]http://www.tirpax.com/kema/kuvat/scratchchin.gif[/img]
I wonder if TOP would even be willing to pay for all the damages they caused in the first day of the war, something I personally view as an extremely light term. Too bad even such a demand by CnG would be seen as an unjust Hegemony-ish move by certain people :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kindom of Goon' date='11 February 2010 - 10:20 AM' timestamp='1265901644' post='2174773']
I could understand this argument if we were into the second month of war but it's not even been two weeks yet.
[/quote]
Two and a half as of yesterday for some of us. ;)

Regardless of that, while I agree with some aspects of the OP I do call into question the idea of whether or not TOP was actually duped into this war. Yes, it can reasonably be argued that if certain parties had clearly and specifically said "if you do this we will leave" then it might not have occured but that does not alleviate the point that the plan was made to begin with and was contested by at least some of those that were supposedly being supported by the opening of this new front.

For my part, I wish I had clearly and specifically requested IRON enter against Fark. My failure to explicitly make that request indirectly resulted in their going along with this scheme and has led to this Cluster$%&@ War being even more convoluted than was necessary. I didn't so they did what they thought was best for them at the time. That does not automatically mean that they are bad people or that I should just take my ball and go home.

Most of the combatants in this war have proven themselves honorable. We enjoyed the banter we had with FOK during our brief war and with some of the other alliances like GOD to some extent. Unfortunately I believe we (NSO) are officially fighting on the D-Bag Front at present and therefore are in for a very long war.

Edited by Ivan Moldavi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks are entitled to their own interpretations, but not to their own facts.

Regardless of whether TOP/IRON were 'played' or not, they fired the first shot in an offensive war. People may not like this, but it happens to be a fact no matter how many times its opposite is asserted.

I see no good reason for CnG and its allies/associates to ignore this very simple fact, say "Good game!", shake hands and walk away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='HellAngel' date='11 February 2010 - 03:50 PM' timestamp='1265903429' post='2174809']
If theres hypocrisy involved, why not?
[/quote]
Because simply crying 'hypocrite!' does not automatically invalidate the point that he is making.

Edited by Aimee Mann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Aimee Mann' date='11 February 2010 - 06:44 PM' timestamp='1265903093' post='2174805']
Classic. If you can't attack the post, attack the poster.
[/quote]
kriekfreak whole post was attacking the poster, Syz...and you just noticed HellAnglel post? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Aimee Mann' date='11 February 2010 - 04:57 PM' timestamp='1265903877' post='2174822']
Because simply crying 'hypocrite!' does not automatically invalidate the point that he is making.
[/quote]

The point he is making is basically "You are unimportant". And for someone to make such a claim he would at least needed to have met Syz before, which i take it he didnt. Why even participate in this discussion when he is not at all interested in what Syz has to say? Why not simply ignore it?

That his nation doesnt add much to the overall NS on our side is also a given and true for every nation, whether it be #1 or #26000, so all he is doing is trying to provoke and get attetion while accusing Syz of attention-whoring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Arthur Blair' date='11 February 2010 - 02:43 PM' timestamp='1265899385' post='2174739']
Do you also think that the justification for that mentality is the same?
[/quote]

In a sense yes, in another sense, no. In the sense that you'd be doing it "for security and protection from attacks in the future" yes, but this wasn't something that you set out to do, as in you didn't start the war agains TOP and IRON. [edited right here:] because, most wars by the hegemony, if not all of their wars, were planned much in advance and were over before they started.

So the answer is "... sort of... I guess."

edited AGAIN: To moridin, I'm not saying that c&g are in the wrong here, because I can't see into the future, as I've stated before, my attempts at time travel have been ill-fated at best, so I'm merely saying IF. I don't know if they will or not, and I do realize that MK is entitled to something in the form of reparations from this war, so it's an IF. And to answer the rest of your post, ... well, the above kinda answers it.. the above above that is.

Edited by astronaut jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]So Bob, who were the aggressors in this war in your opinion? CnG? lol.[/quote]
There have been many aggressors through the war. NpO, FOK, Stickmen, SF, and yes, TOP/IRON, and several more later on (DF, Aircastle, ...) are all aggressors. Essentially everyone except C&G, \m/ and PC, although I'm sure you could pick out a couple more obligations if you try hard enough.

The point though is that being an 'aggressor' in a global war is not the same thing as being an aggressive alliance which needs to be crushed. You can see that clearly by the fact that every other front was peaced out.

[quote]Regardless of whether TOP/IRON were 'played' or not, they fired the first shot in an offensive [b]front[/b].[/quote]
They opened a new front in an existing war, and yes, obviously they entered offensively.

[quote]Ok, Bob, so you believe that it was a Polar trap then?[/quote]
I think I made it clear in the thread about that issue that I believe it was a serious breakdown in communication between the alliances in the Polar coalition.

[quote]Your three steps are suggesting you're in a reality where TOP didn't form a coalition and come for us with a flimsy CB.[/quote]
TOP did not form a coalition, they joined one, and they did not 'come after you', they attacked a set of alliances that were arrayed against them already. And clearly it's a bad decision and they wouldn't do it again in future, so you can't even (reasonably) say that you're even in danger of being pre-empted when you next go into a global war. So yes, my steps are pointing out that in fact that [i]is[/i] the reality.

[quote]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?[/quote]
Generally agreeing to leave a war means, well, leaving the war, despite you guys managing to persuade NpO not to do so. The whole war is based around an issue which is now solved so it would be best for everyone to peace out all fronts, so there are no enemy coalitions. I imagine TOP and IRON's peace would be conditional on NSO being able to leave as well, for example. But I'm sure that once they agreed to leave the war they would not re-enter.

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]What standards do we claim to uphold, exactly?[/quote]
Being better than the Hegemony. Go read some of Archon's words from Karma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='ROMMELHSQ' date='11 February 2010 - 03:58 PM' timestamp='1265903920' post='2174826']
kriekfreak whole post was attacking the poster, Syz...and you just noticed HellAnglel post? :rolleyes:
[/quote]
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 a random insult with no apparent reasoning whatsoever (aka attacking the poster and not the post).

Edited by Aimee Mann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. If our enemies does not agree to our resonable demands we shall have no choice but to beat them down like any common rouge.

Edited by der_ko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[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]
Man, you had me until the last line.

Words are just words. Politicians use them to corral the masses towards a specific aim. The Karma War was about a shift in the political landscape, not about a righteous revolution against oppression. The oppression still exists, some people just do it with less "evil" flare than the NPO did.

Rhetoric used to push the populace towards action so that the orators can gain power is still just rhetoric at the end of the day. Even if the orators have drunk their own kool-aid and even start believing their own propaganda the end result is the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...