Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[Richard Rahl]

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='15 February 2010 - 11:06 PM' timestamp='1266293198' post='2184374']
I haven't actually addressed this much, I'll admit, but frankly the extent to which you saw these perceived actions has been highly exaggerated in the past. Not once did TOP ever attempt diplomacy with regard to this, either. You've cried about that in the past, but you never once attempted diplomacy here - you simply attacked aggressively. So a few members spouted off occasionally about rolling TOP (along with just about every other alliance on the face of the planet, none of whom were ever rolled), and instead of diplomacy, you went with war.

Yeahhhhhhhh.
[/quote]

No other alliance was as antagonistic towards us as MK was. None. Why should we have to go and have talks with you when your members speak about destroying us? That's not our responsibility. Should we have had more contact with MK? Of course. We took the words of your members to heart though, and this was the result. I do agree, and never said otherwise, that we attacked aggressively. My point is that I don't understand why this would surprise any alliance that continually trolled/flamed/antagonized/threatened us.

I understand MKs position. I just don't get why you don't understand ours.

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='15 February 2010 - 11:07 PM' timestamp='1266293235' post='2184376']
And you clearly have had no contact with MK, at all. Well done thinking that we want to kill you from what our members (aka me) say to most alliances in the Cyberverse. You aren't alone, and you were not anywhere NEARBY the people who we have said that to the most.

roll NSO
roll FOK
roll Athens
roll NPO

I await all of your Declarations of War upon MK for my threats as a member towards you.
[/quote]

During this war I exchanged friendly pms with many MKers and those were all stand up chaps. That doesn't negate the trolling and hate that MK spewed at us for so long. That you pretend to not understand how that would make us angry enough to attack is ridiculous. And just because you also antagonize other alliances means absolutely nothing in this conversation. I'm not talking about how you treat other alliances. I'm talking about how you treat TOP.

[quote name='Denial' date='15 February 2010 - 11:08 PM' timestamp='1266293318' post='2184384']
This is amusing coming from a member of an alliance that has fallen over themselves to claim that Crymson's comments since stepping down from leadership do not represent any official stance from TOP, and thus should not be used as a method of criticising them. Sorry, you cannot have it both ways.
[/quote]

So members of alliances cannot have differing opinions? MK claims otherwise. They claim members can say whatever they want about another alliance and the alliance cannot be held responsible for those actions. Especially if they say "We didn't mean it lol". Your point also is not true because you assume I disagree with Crymson's actions.

[NoFish]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='15 February 2010 - 11:28 PM' timestamp='1266294533' post='2184454']
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.
[/quote]
To paraphrse: "Uh, uh, uh, NO! [i]You're[/i] stupid! Let's drop the subject."

There's really something to be said for being able to gracefully admit when you're wrong.

[Stetson76]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' date='15 February 2010 - 10:33 PM' timestamp='1266294804' post='2184466']
Well MK hadn't attacked anyone at all but was attacked by TOP and IRON anyway. That's a positive light?
[/quote]

No, the TOP/IRON attack was not positive, and I don't think anyone at this point thinks it was. It could be argued that it made sense, but hindsight has clearly determined that it was the wrong move even should they miraculously turn the tables and win. I was referring to Neneko's comment that suggesting MK had an obligation to defend NpO would have made TOP/IRON's decision look even worse, and I had to agree that yes, preempting a member of your own coalition would indeed be worse. LOL

[Denial]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='16 February 2010 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1266295163' post='2184478']
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.
[/quote]
Both Polar and \m/ have stated that their peace agreement was reached prior to the declarations of war made by TOP, IRON & co. But now that you have brought up the topic of evidence, I am still waiting on that proof that C&G was going to be involved in the NpO-\m/ conflict.

[rsoxbronco1]

[quote name='Epik High' date='15 February 2010 - 11:33 PM' timestamp='1266294809' post='2184467']
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.
[/quote]
TOP became a threat when they attacked us without provocation. You can debate, argue, complain, and whine as much as you like, but we wouldn't have attacked you.

You over-played your hand and now you compare us to NPO just because we've pushed you all in.

[Believland]

"teasing" is a very light term. Anyway, I stopped reading after you mentioned the WoTC. We get it, you got stomped on two years ago and haven't built your nation since then. And since TOP, IRON, and the others have been proactive enough to, they must be executed. Anyway, congrats on your long winded speech. I hope one of these days you try to use humor to make it less bland.

[Denial]

[quote name='Richard Rahl' date='16 February 2010 - 02:11 PM' timestamp='1266295290' post='2184481']
So members of alliances cannot have differing opinions? MK claims otherwise. They claim members can say whatever they want about another alliance and the alliance cannot be held responsible for those actions. Especially if they say "We didn't mean it lol". Your point also is not true because you assume I disagree with Crymson's actions.
[/quote]
Uh, what?

You are attempting to justify TOP's war of aggression, and validate the "you said mean things about us!" excuse for war, by pointing to general membership of Complaints & Grievances alliances. At the same time, you and your ilk are attempting to excuse TOP from any repercussions from Crymson's comments since stepping down from leadership and becoming a general member. On a similar, but more ludicrous note, TOP and its advocates are trying (rather amusingly, I might add) to avoid any responsibility for this war now that Crymson has cycled out of government (only to return in two months) - "Look, we've changed and regret this war! Crymson is no longer in government! ... White peace?"

It does not work that way.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Denial

[Epik High]

[quote name='rsoxbronco1' date='15 February 2010 - 10:43 PM' timestamp='1266295410' post='2184491']
TOP became a threat when they attacked us without provocation. You can debate, argue, complain, and whine as much as you like, but we wouldn't have attacked you.

You over-played your hand and now you compare us to NPO just because we've pushed you all in.
[/quote]

You should reread my point. To summarize... TOP is a threat to CnG because TOP itself suffers from uncertainty i.e. the security dilemma. CnG is now perfectly justified in seeing TOP as a threat, due to the same security dilemma. NPO was justified to do so in the same way, and I'm not saying that is a bad comparison. I felt NPO was justified back then as well. I felt TOP was justified back in WOTC as well. The only point I am making is that CnG does not live up to the unrealistic expectations of being naive and idealistic like Gramlins. Why would you, it's stupid. Do you get my point now?

[Denial]

[quote name='Believland' date='16 February 2010 - 02:16 PM' timestamp='1266295561' post='2184510']
"teasing" is a very light term. Anyway, I stopped reading after you mentioned the WoTC. We get it, you got stomped on two years ago and haven't built your nation since then. And since TOP, IRON, and the others have been proactive enough to, they must be executed. Anyway, congrats on your long winded speech. I hope one of these days you try to use humor to make it less bland.
[/quote]
You could have protected your precious infrastructure by not waging a war of aggression.

[delendum]

[quote name='Believland' date='16 February 2010 - 04:46 AM' timestamp='1266295561' post='2184510']
"teasing" is a very light term. Anyway, I stopped reading after you mentioned the WoTC. We get it, you got stomped on two years ago and haven't built your nation since then. And since TOP, IRON, and the others have been proactive enough to, they must be executed. Anyway, congrats on your long winded speech. I hope one of these days you try to use humor to make it less bland.
[/quote]

Hold it right there sir! I thought we were suppose to be executed for being a threat. You are getting me all confused.

[Weirdgus]

Disappointing speech by Archon to be honest...I am really dismayed to see him leave out the "we will fight with no joy" and "we will not impose draconian terms" lines

[StevieG]

I have a question which I would like an official C&G response to please.

Was it wrong of TIFDTT(pretty wacky name really) to pre-emptively declare on C&G knowing these things.

1) War against C&G being very likely by going in to defend allies.
2) Knowing that in all reality TIFDTT is on the smaller side of the World War.
3) Using an aggressive pre-emptive strike as a way to attempt to balance the tide if you like.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, reasons why this is wrong or right. Both sides opinions on this are welcome and dont have to be official responses.

I wont be back till later, but I would appreciate an answer to this, Cheers.

[Hydro]

[quote name='Denial' date='15 February 2010 - 09:26 PM' timestamp='1266294375' post='2184446']
See: my reply to bigwoody.
[/quote]

I saw it and wasn't moved by it. Polaris is currently attacking GOD, a member of the bloc it had 2 allies in, rendering your comment moot.

[Merrie Melodies]

[quote name='Stetson' date='16 February 2010 - 04:14 AM' 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]
The FoA incident was resolved well over a week prior to NpO attacking \m/
How you can say they aren't the aggressors is beyond me.

[Goldie]

A thoroughly excellent post, 9/10.

[Blue Lightning]

Why not accept a white peace with a neutral agreement of cease-fire and non-aggression for an extended period after the war (say 6 months to a year or so).

If this is purely about neutralising us as a threat and we're willing to agree not to attack you if you don't attack us, why should the conflict continue?

[edit]"Alright, we'll call it a draw" springs to mind. Not every conflict is won or lost, sometimes it's mutually beneficial to disengage before the battle is won or lost. I wouldn't expect CnG to surrender to or admit defeat, nor do I feel it appropriate for our side to do the same, given as you rightly point out that this conflict seems destined for mutual destruction rather than an our-right victory.

[edit2]By MK I meant CnG.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Blue Lightning

[Merrie Melodies]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' date='16 February 2010 - 04:19 AM' timestamp='1266293946' post='2184423']
There had been peace talks for a couple days from what I understand.
[/quote]
Plenty of people knew there were talks going on, they just choose to ignore it because it didn't fit their plans.

I still want my steak

Edited February 16, 2010 by Merrie Melodies

[Believland]

[quote name='Denial' date='15 February 2010 - 11:47 PM' timestamp='1266295670' post='2184521']
You could have protected your precious infrastructure by not waging a war of aggression.
[/quote]
Sir, I could care less about my infra. Now if you would like a duel after the war, then I am open to it. Unless... No, you won't be rebuilding,if it's due to war or just lazyness(yeah it's not an actual word, but I'll use it anyway)Anyway, the offer is still open any time after the war

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' date='15 February 2010 - 11:54 PM' timestamp='1266296074' post='2184554']
Why not accept a white peace with a neutral agreement of cease-fire and non-aggression for an extended period after the war (say 6 months to a year or so).

If this is purely about neutralising us as a threat and we're willing to agree not to attack you if you don't attack us, why should the conflict continue?
[/quote]
If it was up to me, these would be the terms:

[quote]
1. send 5,000,000 to boy
2. send 1,000,000 to mk
3. cease all attack and 10 year truce


this straight peace is offered for 24 hours before full scale fight.
[/quote]

[Drostan]

When you have grabbed a wolf by the ears, it is unwise to let them go.

If TOP planned to attack a CnG ally and then get countered, you can't call pre-emptively attacking CnG directly a pre-emptive defensive move at all can you? In fact, as Archon has pointed out, you can only call it was it is: aggressively attacking CnG.

We can sit around debating the what if TOP/IRON had attacked x, would MK have come in? But that doesn't matter, because TOP/IRON didn't attack x, they attacked people who were not involved yet at all. If TOP/IRON had attacked x (CnG ally), and this war had kicked off, that'd be a whole different kettle of fish. TOP/IRON's pro-active declaration on CnG at large was a statement. That statement read: this world isn't big enough for the both of us and the time has come to end you. Thankfully, their FA bungled as per usual, and the war didn't turn into the curb stomp they had hoped.

Now you see all this crap about white peace that is frankly abusrd and totally inappropriate. If some douchebag punches me in the face a few times for no reason, I am hardly obligated to forgive him for it. In fact, I might just be an idiot for doing so. TOP had the war chest and tech advantage going in, and so peacing them out now would only favour their cause as they will be in a far better position to rebuild than most of CnG. Of course, because of this fact, a longer war also favours them in that sense. But the difference is that if CnG wants to hold their feet to the flames, they can hurt TOP more but will have to sacrifice themselves to do so. That way, nobody wins and this war will have been totally harmful for both parties. Such is the nature of this war.

I love seeing the un-concealed hatred in so many TOP responses here. It is also amusing to see people who only a couple short months ago were scolding my alliance mates for their choler and willingness to go to war now saying "shut up and fight!!1@#3" I also love that the most creative spin their side could come up with this time was recycling rhetoric from Karma that doesn't even fit the situation. Times have changed and TOP/IRON have thusfar refused to change with them. Until TOP begins to accept that they have mishandled several important situations, I have little hope that they will regain the dignity they have been hemorrhaging.

Until that time, best of luck to CnG and her allies in this fight. I only hope that all this gabbing will not weaken your stomach for the task that lies ahead.

Final thought: A lot of TOP members seem to be very keen on the notion of peace. To answer lightning's question, because terms need to be enforced and you need to feel comfortably superior to your adversary in order to trust in them. Make no mistake, this war cannot end in anything less than a loss for one or both parties. Sorry, we can't all go home winners here.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Drostan

[rsoxbronco1]

[quote name='Epik High' date='15 February 2010 - 11:47 PM' timestamp='1266295645' post='2184518']
You should reread my point. To summarize... TOP is a threat to CnG because TOP itself suffers from uncertainty i.e. the security dilemma. CnG is now perfectly justified in seeing TOP as a threat, due to the same security dilemma. NPO was justified to do so in the same way, and I'm not saying that is a bad comparison. I felt NPO was justified back then as well. I felt TOP was justified back in WOTC as well. The only point I am making is that CnG does not live up to the unrealistic expectations of being naive and idealistic like Gramlins. Why would you, it's stupid. Do you get my point now?
[/quote]
That would make sense if we saw you as an active threat before this war.

I see what you're trying to say. You (TOP) were afraid of C&G in the sense that some statements from the membership of certain alliances (namely MK) led you to believe we were a threat. We had 0 interest in fighting TOP, however, and made 0 moves against you.

So yeah, TOP was paranoid.

[quote name='Blue Lightning' date='15 February 2010 - 11:54 PM' timestamp='1266296074' post='2184554']
Why not accept a white peace with a neutral agreement of cease-fire and non-aggression for an extended period after the war (say 6 months to a year or so).

If this is purely about neutralising us as a threat and we're willing to agree not to attack you if you don't attack us, why should the conflict continue?

[edit]"Alright, we'll call it a draw" springs to mind. Not every conflict is won or lost, sometimes it's mutually beneficial to disengage before the battle is won or lost. I wouldn't expect MK to surrender to or admit defeat, nor do I feel it appropriate for our side to do the same, given as you rightly point out that this conflict seems destined for mutual destruction rather than an our-right victory.
[/quote]
We'll see you back in the stone age.

Edited February 16, 2010 by rsoxbronco1

[Archon]

[quote name='Believland' date='15 February 2010 - 11:46 PM' timestamp='1266295561' post='2184510']
"teasing" is a very light term. Anyway, I stopped reading after you mentioned the WoTC. We get it, you got stomped on two years ago and haven't built your nation since then. And since TOP, IRON, and the others have been proactive enough to, they must be executed. Anyway, congrats on your long winded speech. I hope one of these days you try to use humor to make it less bland.
[/quote]

It's a term I use for a reason*. I apologize that the speech was too long for your attention span or not humorous enough - I'll strive to be more "lulzy" in the future for you.

*OOC: I do not wish to violate the forum rules by using a certain word, so it's the best word I could come up with that would communicate the same thing...

[Blue Lightning]

Suits me fine. If mutual destruction is the path you want to take, no need to beat around the bush about it trying to pretend your hands are tied.

[Denial]

[quote name='Believland' date='16 February 2010 - 02:26 PM' timestamp='1266296207' post='2184564']
Sir, I could care less about my infra. Now if you would like a duel after the war, then I am open to it. Unless... No, you won't be rebuilding,if it's due to war or just lazyness(yeah it's not an actual word, but I'll use it anyway)Anyway, the offer is still open any time after the war
[/quote]
Really? You sure seemed about to tear up over your infrastructure with all your baseless commentary surrounding TOP and IRON having to be "executed" due to building up their nations.

And sure, I'm down. Though, there's quite a disparity between our nations at the moment, given that Thurn is quite new to this world. Care to get nuked down to my level?

[tamerlane]

Considering Oyababy was not on the signature to this, I am going to have to consider this to be a false statement.