Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[Bob]

[quote name='Tromp' date='15 February 2010 - 11:13 PM' timestamp='1266293604' post='2184402']
Roll Bob.
[/quote]
No worries, TOP already did that :3

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='15 February 2010 - 11:14 PM' timestamp='1266293663' post='2184404']
None of us were informed there even WERE peace talks.

As far as we were made aware, Grub told chefjoe about an "interesting situation" minutes after the attack begun.
[/quote]

There had been peace talks for a couple days from what I understand.

[Hydro]

[quote name='Denial' date='15 February 2010 - 09:09 PM' timestamp='1266293352' post='2184387']
Either way, the point is irrelevant, as there is no way TOP & IRON can be operating for and defending the Polar coalition by attacking an entirely uninvolved bloc that contains two of Polar's allies. And further, lackluster communication amongst a piss-poor coalition does not justify attacks against Complaints & Grievances.
[/quote]




[quote][22:48] <Crymson[TOP]> Do you acknowledge that you yourself, before our attacks on MK and GR, stated all of the following: your approval of our war plans against those alliances, your intention to not honor those treaties in this instance, and your agreement that our attack was part of the greater war against \m/ and their allies?
[22:49] <AlmightyGrub> correct
[22:49] <Crymson[TOP]> You acknowledge all of the above?
[22:49] <AlmightyGrub> yes
[22:49] <Crymson[TOP]> Great.
[22:49] <AlmightyGrub> I have never said I dont
[22:49] <Crymson[TOP]> I'm sure you have no issue with me posting that segment on the OWF.
[22:49] <Crymson[TOP]> Is that correct?
[22:50] <AlmightyGrub> do whatever you feel you need to Crymson[/quote]



http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80162&st=0&p=2163314&#entry2163314



Unless Grub has come out and said otherwise, the ball is in your park...

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='15 February 2010 - 11:13 PM' timestamp='1266293630' post='2184403']
:| Just a sample list RV. roll SOS brigade as well, and roll FAIL.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]FAIL cannot be rolled. There simply is not enough FAIL to be rolled.[/color]

[Bob]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='15 February 2010 - 11:19 PM' timestamp='1266293969' post='2184427']
[color="#0000FF"]FAIL cannot be rolled. There simply is not enough FAIL to be rolled.[/color]
[/quote]
MK will loan you some FAIL in order to roll you properly.

[Archon]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='15 February 2010 - 11:09 PM' timestamp='1266293393' post='2184388']
Well what were you offering them? I assume there was some discussion about peace in which they replied "either white peace or nothing".
[/quote]

Before we even had the chance to think about anything to offer, they came out and told us they'd accept no terms, only white peace. So we haven't really thought about it because they essentially told us not to waste our time.

[quote name='Stetson' date='15 February 2010 - 11:14 PM' timestamp='1266293697' post='2184410']
The statement quoted below while well said, is in direct opposition to what you've just stated. You say that they are not willing to budge in one breath and in the other that you're not willing to even begin discussing the matter. Would you care to clarify?





And as far as this, I was under the impression that NpO was an ally of MK? And yes, I know they said they didn't want any any help with \m/ or the expected counter from PC however, as soon as FOK escalated the situation, your obligation was the same as NSO's. And no, NpO was not the aggressor, \m/ aggressively attacked another alliance and NpO used paperless FA to defend them...I heard somewhere that you were familiar with that concept, so I won't explain it for you.

And you really have no response to the first two points?
[/quote]

I clarify this in my above reply - I apologize for being less than clear, and hope that the above can help improve understanding. As far as Polar goes, no assistance was ever requested from Polar.

As for your first two points, I honestly didn't feel like it* and was hoping someone else would.

*OOC: And by didn't feel like it, I mean I'm also watching the Olympics and am only paying some attention to this - I'm surprised I haven't blundered in some replies as a result tbh. I can go back and address them, if you'd like.

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='15 February 2010 - 11:20 PM' timestamp='1266294048' post='2184431']
MK will loan you some FAIL in order to roll you properly.
[/quote]

You're joining fail?

[Bob]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' date='15 February 2010 - 11:21 PM' timestamp='1266294092' post='2184434']
You're joining fail?
[/quote]
Ouch. My ego just took a massive blow :<

[neneko]

[quote name='Stetson' date='16 February 2010 - 05:14 AM' timestamp='1266293697' post='2184410']
And as far as this, I was under the impression that NpO was an ally of MK? And yes, I know they said they didn't want any any help with \m/ or the expected counter from PC however, as soon as FOK escalated the situation, your obligation was the same as NSO's. And no, NpO was not the aggressor, \m/ aggressively attacked another alliance and NpO used paperless FA to defend them...I heard somewhere that you were familiar with that concept, so I won't explain it for you.
[/quote]
Putting aside the fact that the issue betwen \m/ and the alliance you claim polar had a paperless FA with (not even polar have claimed this) was already resolved since that will lead down a line that doesn't belong in this topic.

Are you really sure you want to argue the point that we had an obligation to join in polars defense? Because that doesn't really shed a positive light on the actions top&c/o took.

Edited February 16, 2010 by neneko

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' date='15 February 2010 - 10:19 PM' timestamp='1266293946' post='2184423']
There had been peace talks for a couple days from what I understand.
[/quote]

he said no one was aware, though. whether they were going on or not.

[NoFish]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='15 February 2010 - 11:12 PM' timestamp='1266293572' post='2184398']
i thought "discussing" would be a rather neutral way of putting it but if you want me to edit it to "it doesnt mean CnG wasnt trying to find a way in", then i'll get right on that.
[/quote]
Well you could, but that would be stupid. C&G members have treaties with Poison Clan and FOK! both, permitting them to have gone in on NpO and NSO, respectively. Obviously, they already had a way in if they were that eager to do so.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' date='15 February 2010 - 11:21 PM' timestamp='1266294092' post='2184434']
You're joining fail?
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]What makes you think we'd let him?[/color]

[Bob]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='15 February 2010 - 11:25 PM' timestamp='1266294319' post='2184444']
[color="#0000FF"]What makes you think we'd let him?[/color]
[/quote]
Does everyone hate me?

[Denial]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='16 February 2010 - 01:42 PM' timestamp='1266293565' post='2184397']
Oh, it wasn't piss poor communication necessarily, it was one party determined to carry out their own plan even as those actually fighting voiced concern and disagreement with it.

Believe me, very few people are more pissed about the overall direction that some of the "grand strategy" planners took this then myself, but I still believe the factual stream of events be preserved, [b]if only to highlight the sheer amount of idiocy from start to finish in this conflict.[/b]
[/quote]
On that part, we are certainly in agreement.

[quote name='bigwoody' date='16 February 2010 - 01:42 PM' timestamp='1266293579' post='2184401']
Except, as ill advised as supporting Polar was, that is exactly what occurred. If the peace agreement was struck before the attack begun, the attack would not have happened, period.
[/quote]
The peace agreement was struck before TOP, IRON & co. aggressively attacked an uninvolved bloc. The alliance you were attempting to 'defend' from its own allies having poor communication does not justify your belligerence.

[quote name='Branimir' date='16 February 2010 - 01:44 PM' timestamp='1266293686' post='2184408']
Grub did said he was ok with that. Weird ally huh?...Sanctioning attacks on his treaty partners like that,...

Well, thanks Archon for once again repeating everything we be hearing over and over again, some time now.
[/quote]
I do not think my personal opinion on Grub's worth is a secret. However, the point remains: there were treaties in existence that prevented Complaints & Grievances from ever being a threat to Polar, which debunks the claim of TOP and IRON's that they were entering to 'defend' Polar.

[quote name='Hydro' date='16 February 2010 - 01:49 PM' timestamp='1266293959' post='2184424']
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80162&st=0&p=2163314&#entry2163314



Unless Grub has come out and said otherwise, the ball is in your park...
[/quote]
See: my reply to bigwoody.

[rsoxbronco1]

[quote name='Richard Rahl' date='15 February 2010 - 11:02 PM' timestamp='1266292976' post='2184361']
"The attacks perpetrated by TOP and her allies against the Complaints and Grievances Union were born out of paranoia, unsubstantiated by concrete evidence beyond teasing and whatnot by regular C&G members (but few or no instances by government)..."

It interesting that you think you can let your members say anything they want (roll TOP) over and over again and expect it to have no consequences. MK and CnG spent months taunting, trolling, and flaming TOP. You saying "Oh but our government didn't do it" means nothing. Take responsibility for the actions of your alliance. MK wanted to roll TOP. Your members said it often enough. Own up to it. I don't see why you have to hide the fact that you wanted to roll TOP.

Also, it surprises me that people would wonder why TOP attacked such measures as it did after the actions of MK. I understand why people wouldn't like it, that makes sense. Asking "Why did you attack someone that has been saying they wanted to destroy you for months?" is just plain foolishness.
[/quote]
Prior to TOP's attack against C&G, I had 0 interest in attacking or fighting TOP. If TOP/IRON had not entered against our allies in the \m/ war, we all could have sat on the sideliens and watched NpO, PC, and FOK nuke each other silly. (which was what we had decided as a bloc) This may come as a surprise to you, but some people in C&G actually liked TOP up until a few weeks ago. (Personally, I was ambivilent)

Then you attacked us.

Now you're pretty much hated up and down the ranks in every C&G alliance. You went from having a few people in every alliance hate you while most people felt meh and a few liked you to everyone hating you in the blink of an eye. GJ.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Hydro' date='16 February 2010 - 04:19 AM' timestamp='1266293959' post='2184424']
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80162&st=0&p=2163314&#entry2163314



Unless Grub has come out and said otherwise, the ball is in your park...
[/quote]

It will never cease to crack me up that people put so much stock in an alliance leader giving his word, to not honor his word, then crying foul when they find out that trusting that person was just kinda stupid on their part.

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='NoFish' date='15 February 2010 - 10:25 PM' timestamp='1266294316' post='2184443']
Well you could, but that would be stupid. C&G members have treaties with Poison Clan and FOK! both, permitting them to have gone in on NpO and NSO, respectively. Obviously, they already had a way in if they were that eager to do so.
[/quote]

stupid, just like your comment regarding me using the term "discussing". but honestly, going on about all these treaties and if they had a way in or not is pretty irrelevant now as the original spark to ignite the fire is long gone and what we're fighting now is a "i'm right, you're wrong" war.

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='15 February 2010 - 11:24 PM' timestamp='1266294245' post='2184442']
he said no one was aware, though. whether they were going on or not.
[/quote]

Well considering they were going on for days, I'd say they were going on

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='15 February 2010 - 11:25 PM' timestamp='1266294353' post='2184445']
Does everyone hate me?
[/quote]

Less than shamed, but more than Fallen Fail.

We just pity fallen fail.

[Stetson76]

[quote name='neneko' date='15 February 2010 - 10:22 PM' timestamp='1266294165' post='2184437']
Putting aside the fact that the issue betwen \m/ and the alliance you claim polar had a paperless FA with (not even polar have claimed this) was already resolved since that will lead down a line that doesn't belong in this topic.[/quote]

Were resolved [b]after[/b] the actions addressed in the OP occurred you mean...carry on...

[quote]
Are you really sure you want to argue the point that we had an obligation to join in polars defense? Because that doesn't really shed a positive light on the actions top&c/o took.
[/quote]

So, this would be a poor thing to argue because, had MK defended NpO from FOK, IRON and TOP would still have attacked C&G? Wow, you're right, if TOP and Co. had attacked an alliance that was in the same coalition they were that would really shine a less than positive light on them. LMAO

[Bob]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' date='15 February 2010 - 11:29 PM' timestamp='1266294569' post='2184458']
Less than shamed, but more than Fallen Fail.

We just pity fallen fail.
[/quote]
I can accept that I suppose.

In terms of this thread, oh gosh~

[rsoxbronco1]

[quote name='Stetson' date='15 February 2010 - 11:30 PM' timestamp='1266294637' post='2184459']
Were resolved [b]after[/b] the actions addressed in the OP occurred you mean...carry on...



So, this would be a poor thing to argue because, had MK defended NpO from FOK, IRON and TOP would still have attacked C&G? Wow, you're right, if TOP and Co. had attacked an alliance that was in the same coalition they were that would really shine a less than positive light on them. LMAO
[/quote]
MK is treatied to FOK.

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='Stetson' date='15 February 2010 - 11:30 PM' timestamp='1266294637' post='2184459']


So, this would be a poor thing to argue because, had MK defended NpO from FOK, IRON and TOP would still have attacked C&G? Wow, you're right, if TOP and Co. had attacked an alliance that was in the same coalition they were that would really shine a less than positive light on them. LMAO
[/quote]

Well MK hadn't attacked anyone at all but was attacked by TOP and IRON anyway. That's a positive light?

[Epik High]

CnG has every reason to protract this war for the sake of realpolitik. Every alliance should be expected to act to diminish any threats to it's power. Sure, TOP may not have been grinding their axe for CnG because they hated them; rather, it was probably because TOP felt CnG was doing the same. Classic security dilemma, and now CnG has no way to be 100% sure that TOP will not try to kill them in the future. Thus, TOP is a threat simply by virtue of existing and holding large amounts of power, and CnG I believe is justified in doing what it can to diminish it. It's exactly what NPO would have done, and did in the past. It's what TOP did for NpO's surrender terms. I understood it then, I understand it now.

I think a lot of people got caught up in the Karma propaganda and started having expectations that every alliance would become something like the idealistic Gramlins... which was unique in the way it trusted enemies to change and whatnot. Anyways, I hope this war lasts much, much longer. It will probably be more fun that way, and I don't think any surrender terms will really be worth it, by virtue of the threat-diminishing purpose it will have.

[Branimir]

[quote name='Denial' date='16 February 2010 - 05:26 AM' timestamp='1266294375' post='2184446']However, the point remains: there were treaties in existence that prevented Complaints & Grievances from ever being a threat to Polar, which debunks the claim of TOP and IRON's that they were entering to 'defend' Polar. [/quote]
Not really.

There is already presented counter point that due to foreseeing in how treaties would chain, it still works as defense of Polar's side, in extension of Polar it self, by a preemptive action.

I do agree though that they should have waited for the chaining effect to actually happen. Also wording was terrible. Quite the "leeeroooy jenkings" moment. Anyway, you all have fun arguing this.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Denial' date='15 February 2010 - 10:26 PM' timestamp='1266294375' post='2184446']
The peace agreement was struck before TOP, IRON & co. aggressively attacked an uninvolved bloc. The alliance you were attempting to 'defend' from its own allies having poor communication does not justify your belligerence.
[/quote]
Again, there is no evidence of this. Further, you'll note I covered the latter point, helping Polar was a mistake.

OOC: Your persistence with talking points is admirable, and I was quite serious that I will write you a RL letter of recommendation for Fox News on request.