Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[Archon]

[quote name='Airikr' date='16 February 2010 - 07:16 PM' timestamp='1266365773' post='2186513']
I've always liked ya and respected ya Archon, please don't take it too personally. Just, we are always on the opposite side when it comes to war, so, my comments are likely to be oriented as such.

I'll buy ya a beer when the shooting stops.
[/quote]

Aye, I'm more testy than I should be. I'll man up and admit I was taking that too sensitively.

It better be a good PA microbrew, though


[quote name='peron' date='16 February 2010 - 08:57 PM' timestamp='1266371865' post='2186659']
I don't post a lot on these forums for a reason.

However, since I am involved in this particular situation, I feel like it warrants a response.

As you said in your OP Archon, this is your interpretation of the talks Crymson and I had with you. Thats fair enough. In all honestly this is exactly the type of response I expected to hear from you. I did however, expect that to come in private, not a public post on these forums. We told you our side of the story and we were honest with you. It was up to you to interpret it. And you did so in the best way possible to support your side.

You've said so yourself that had we entered on the Super Friends front that you would have been "honor bound" to defend your allies. We saw that too. There was no avoiding it. Therefore, we thought the best course of action was to Pre-empt CnG. A [i]Pre-emptive[/i] strike as part of the original conflict in the NpO-\m/ war. NOT a seperate conflict. That was our reasoning for this war, no matter how you try to spin it.

So I say this, your free to interpret things however you wish. That is your right as a sovereign alliance. But let me remind you, that just because you think thats how things happened, doesn't make it true.

Also for the record, we are not against discussing peace. It was just said that we are unlikely to accept anything other than white peace.
[/quote]

Peron, I like you, I think you're a good guy, and I think you're a great asset for IRON. As for why I posted it, well, if you scroll to the bottom of this post you'll pretty much see why.

[quote name='kevin32891' date='16 February 2010 - 10:13 PM' timestamp='1266376380' post='2186834']
No one stays King forever.
[/quote]

They won't let me quit

[quote name='Denial' date='16 February 2010 - 10:28 PM' timestamp='1266377323' post='2186893']
Quite frankly, to state that this topic was solely regarding the informal talk Archon held with Crymson and Peron is either a gross misunderstanding of the topic content or blatant misrepresentation. The primary goal of this topic for Complaints & Grievances was to dispel many rumours floating around - such as those spread by people talking out of their $@! regarding supposed surrender terms - and to present our case in one central topic.
[/quote]

This is a fantastic tl;dr, and I hope everyone reads it.

[Saber]

[quote name='Earogema' date='17 February 2010 - 04:56 AM' timestamp='1266379017' post='2186964']
EDIT: Saber got it below me.
[/quote]
The best part is that it was posted 20 days ago and that whole this time anyone really wanting to be inform himself knew of it. I even quoted Jyrinx's post expecting him to delete it.

PS. It was quite funny to click post and see your post above mine. I was making my statement for a while and didn't see the argument be brought up. Funny coincidence.

[Fantastico]

[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80555&view=findpost&p=2186368"]This new statement from Syzygy[/url] really should be included and considered here.

It's one of the most clear-headed analyses of this standoff I've seen yet. Archon seems to get it, but Londo and Denial still seem to be somewhere else.



edit:

Also, looks like Saber answered Earogema's question.

Now consider that leaked info alongside CSM's rushed "make peace" logs with Archon, and yeah, peace with TOP/IRON/etc was in neither of their plans.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Fantastico

[Earogema]

[quote name='Saber' date='16 February 2010 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1266379052' post='2186965']
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79467&view=findpost&p=2151083

Chief Savage Man was informed by Jyrinx of STA that TOP and IRON will fight against them. You can read his post to Chief Savage in that thread (although I don't get what possessed him to admit to sending that PM).

Also Chief Savage Man in the same thread that he peaced out because the larger picture was explained to him.

Your post is hence very true. If there was wish for real peace it could have been achieved several times. However it was not, instead immediate propaganda was aimed at breaking up our coalition and isolating several key alliances. For what goal is clear to anyone.
[/quote]
Note the date being the 28th and the peace being on that same date- the 28th.

Also note this
[quote]
There was no conspiracy and I even stated at the beginning this was my own view. I had no idea btw that TOP and IRON were going to pre-emptively hit CnG (if others in gov knew, they didn't inform me).[/quote]
Jyrinx was under the impression that they would be entering not against C&G, but against SF.

There would have been little time for us to communicate that to TOP/IRON. And once again we will state- That wasn't our call. NpO had the greatest obligation to inform TOP/IRON. You were starting war with people we had no treaty with. PC or FOK could have said something too.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Earogema

[Earogema]

[quote name='Fantastico' date='16 February 2010 - 10:06 PM' timestamp='1266379598' post='2186982']
[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80555&view=findpost&p=2186368"]This new statement from Syzygy[/url] really should be included and considered here.

It's one of the most clear-headed analyses of this standoff I've seen yet. Archon seems to get it, but Londo and Denial still seem to be somewhere else.



edit:

Also, looks like Saber answered Earogema's question.

Now consider that leaked info alongside CSM's rushed "make peace" logs with Archon, and yeah, peace with TOP/IRON/etc was in neither of their plans.
[/quote]
CSM didn't expect an attack on C&G until Archon came forward. Jyrinx warned CSM of an attack on SF. We could have gone to Hoo and told him, and then told TOP "WAIT DON'T ATTACK SF WE'RE DONE" but in fact, there wasn't going to be an attack on SF.

Besides this I think one key point is that CSM is but one member of a tri. Marx and Goby also had their reasons.

[GoddessOfLinn]

[quote name='delendum' date='17 February 2010 - 04:55 AM' timestamp='1266378902' post='2186960']
We were told, out of their own initiative (that means we didn't go for any peace talks, they just informed us), that they aren't likely to accept anything but white peace. As we are unprepared to even consider offering white peace at this point, we just didn't bother with it.

We will not offer white peace because this battle is not won. Our strategy is very simple, in fact, I can sum it up in 3 words: Stand and fight. You attacked us, what, we should just say "oh hey guys it looks like we're winning, here, have white peace while you've still got your infra, better luck next time".

I'm sorry friend, MK just isn't into "turning the other cheek". If you want to bloody us up, we'll bloody you up in return to the best of our ability.
[/quote]

My bad, I was under the misguided understanding that there had been some kind of peace-talks/meeting and you must understand why I would have a hard time beliving that C&G would come to such talks without have atleast an idea of what kind of terms they would offer.

And no I dont expect C&G to 'turn the other cheek', But I do expect C&G to present reasonable terms to an defeated enemy. As I see it it is only a matter of time until TOP/IRON/and friends are defeated. I hope that we are not going back to the 'old' days where alliances was given devastating terms.

Edited February 17, 2010 by GoddessOfLinn

[StevieG]

[quote name='Rafael Nadal' date='17 February 2010 - 07:20 AM' timestamp='1266348024' post='2185939']

I don't care about arguing aggression/defensive pre-emption or whatever you want to argue it is. The fact remains the same, TOP, IRON, TORN and others attacked CnG as a whole in a manner which they believed was most likely to result in a victory for them. This manner was a pre-emptive strike to catch most of us in a non-militarized state and to choose their first targets as they'd like. I congratulate you on doing this, as really, you needed to do that in order to have the best shot to defeat us (if we are to assume CnG would fight TOP, IRON, etc without the pre-emption). I'm not sure what potential alliances you lost, if any, but you seemed to have a decent enough amount backing you in your action, so I guess it was a somewhat decent idea to go through with.

So, speaking in the same objective, non-emotional terms, why would CnG give TOP, IRON, TORN collective white peace now? Clearly, because our advantage is in number of nations in the midrange, rather than matching your upper tier numbers and warchests as a whole, peacing you out now without massive reparations (which I don't believe many desire) benefits you more than us. We essentially lose in a white peace right now. Perhaps this might change in a few war cycles, as your nations continue to be dragged down, have warchests depleted to where you can just straight rebuild past us as soon as peace is declared, etc.

Anyways, just my take on things.
[/quote]

I think that many beleive that with the peacing out of the NpO-\m/ front that there was no need for the war to go any longer. It is understandable that C&G would want to keep TOP and co in a longer war for the reasons you stated above, mainly due to two actions on the TOP and co side of things, plus a tactical descision on C&Gs side.

1) The pre-emptive nature in which TOP and co assaulted C&G. This can be looked at in a few ways, and in truth the answer is probably a mix of Paranoia(although the extent of that is minimised by our side and maximised by yours), True Pre-emptive action, in which TOP and co felt that the likelyhood of facing C&G was extremely high and felt that the odds were stacked against them, so turned to a "suprise" tactic to attempt to offset the balance back in TOP and cos favour(we can see now that this move probably backfired and led to TOP and co gaining less support. Add to that the whole NpO coming and going affair).

2) The OPs words in stating the CB against C&G. C&G wants to continue the war, and return the favour of bloodying TOP back, just as TOP wanted to do to C&G. (Whether that was a bit of rambling on the OPs part or Actually how TOP felt is an issue debatable by both sides)

3) TOPs wachests and tech levels. This is probably the biggest single reason to keep top in a prolonged state of war. Their is plenty of evidence around the OWF to show that C&G beleive that peacing out now will simply allow TOP to shoot straight back to Pre War levels(peace now would allow me personally to get back to prewar levels instantly, with the loss of a few hundreds of tech), and can instantly be a threat to C&G and co once again. Now that wouldnt be so bad if C&G and co could do the same, but that likelyhood is probably a lot smaller on an across the board level due to them being involved in a lot more beatings and conflicts over the recent past.

This is where the whole "Not giving TOP peace proves their Paranoia was right" argument comes from. More corectly should it read "C&G an co are paranoid about TOP and co coming back to get them if they give them peace". Wether they are right or wrong for me has no bearing on what their actions are. C&G and co are in the better position right now and can choose how they go about it, while TOP and co have no choice in the matter but to continue to fight really. C&G and co have apparantly made the decision that they dont want TOP to be a threat after this war is over, and are acting in self interest by continuing to hold TOP and co in a state of prolonged war so as to diminish their warchests/tech levels etc.

Whether the strategy is sound or not, time will only tell. You cant fully predict what can happen in this world, so I guess we will just wait and see. One thing for certain, there are a lot of people with their thinking hats on right now.

Edit: punctuation

Edited February 17, 2010 by StevieG

[Fantastico]

[quote name='Earogema' date='16 February 2010 - 10:09 PM' timestamp='1266379755' post='2186992']
Note the date being the 28th and the peace being on that same date- the 28th.

Also note this

Jyrinx was under the impression that they would be entering not against C&G, but against SF.

There would have been little time for us to communicate that to TOP/IRON. And once again we will state- That wasn't our call. NpO had the greatest obligation to inform TOP/IRON. You were starting war with people we had no treaty with. PC or FOK could have said something too.
[/quote]

It's okay if you just admit that \m/ and quite of few of her friends had no interest in communicating its intention to take the peace to TOP/etc, let alone communicating [b]why [/b]you were accepting it to Grub. Whether SF or C&G was leaked as the target is immaterial since the attacks on C&G occurred while \m/ was gathering sigs for that surprise peace announcement.

As for CSM's peace chat with Archon not being important since you have a triumvirate, you are trying way too hard.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Believland' date='16 February 2010 - 08:50 PM' timestamp='1266371423' post='2186647']
I think you expect them all to maintain the same NS throughout the war. You're also not taking into account of their NHMS or whatever it's called. Other than that, good post
[/quote]
HNMS doesn't matter once you've run out of nukes. You can still only fire two a day.

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='16 February 2010 - 09:05 PM' timestamp='1266372353' post='2186677']
there would've been no misinterpretation of what CnG's course of action would be.
[/quote]
Our course of action [b]was[/b] to end the war in the fastest way possible and do what was best for all of our involved allies. We did that. I see little need for conjecture on what would have happened.

[quote name='GoddessOfLinn' date='16 February 2010 - 09:54 PM' timestamp='1266375295' post='2186769']
Just wondering what kind of terms C&G would be willing to offer?
[/quote]
We will consider terms when TOP is ready to talk terms. We've got other things to worry about until then.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Fantastico' date='16 February 2010 - 10:32 PM' timestamp='1266381131' post='2187044']
It's okay if you just admit that \m/ and quite of few of her friends had no interest in communicating its intention to take the peace to TOP/etc, let alone communicating [b]why [/b]you were accepting it to Grub. Whether SF or C&G was leaked as the target is immaterial since the attacks on C&G occurred while \m/ was gathering sigs for that surprise peace announcement.

As for CSM's peace chat with Archon not being important since you have a triumvirate, you are trying way too hard.
[/quote]
I never said it wasn't important. I was saying that CSM doesn't have full say. He has 1/3rd of the say. That's a big chunk, but it isn't 50%+1.

We had no reason to communicate why we were accepting peace to Grub other than what we posted in our Peace agreement. Grub admit that he wasn't the sole moral authority on Bob. That was the only counter offer before the date of the 28th, when the leak in question took place. Whether or not Grub figured we were peacing to allow TOP to die is irrelevant. The point remains. Grub knew we were going to peace, and he knew that TOP/IRON were going to declare on C&G.

We knew they were going to declare (just look at me back-peddle D:). We could have told TOP/IRON yeah, but we had no obligation to. Whether they kill themselves or not is none of my business. CSM does say in that thread that we were privy to what this meant for orange, yeah, but that could have been avoided had Grub/Archon/C&G/FOK/PC told TOP/IRON. CSM was the [i]least[/i] connected to TOP/CG of all these personalities.

Besides that, TOP declares war in support of Polar because they hate what \m/ does and then you expect us to not let them kill themselves? Keep in mind that of all alliances involved in this conflict \m/ has said nothing about wanting peace for the sake of peace. We wanted heads smashed in.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Earogema

[Crymson]

[quote name='StevieG' date='16 February 2010 - 09:30 PM' timestamp='1266381059' post='2187039']
2) The OPs words in stating the CB against C&G. C&G wants to continue the war, and return the favour of bloodying TOP back, just as TOP wanted to do to C&G. (Whether that was a bit of rambling on the OPs part or Actually how TOP felt is an issue debatable by both sides)
[/quote]

They were my own words.

[Fantastico]

[quote name='Earogema' date='16 February 2010 - 10:40 PM' timestamp='1266381634' post='2187059']
We had no reason to communicate why we were accepting peace to Grub other than what we posted in our Peace agreement.
[/quote]


Thanks. This is all I wanted to hear you say.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Crymson' date='16 February 2010 - 10:41 PM' timestamp='1266381691' post='2187060']
They were my own words.
[/quote]

regardless of whose words they were, they were put on an official TOP document and signed off by TOP gov.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Fantastico' date='16 February 2010 - 10:43 PM' timestamp='1266381780' post='2187063']
Thanks. This is all I wanted to hear you say.
[/quote]
Do keep in mind this was the same alliance that attacked FoA for no reason and told people to do something about it. Then when they did, we kept warring for 9 days before finally being convinced by somebody who wanted TSO to get killed.

If you were honestly going to rely on us to care for TOP/IRON you're just being ridiculous. Not only that, but it's no secret that TOP/IRON don't like us. Considering that happened to be why TOP/IRON declared on C&G, I think that's a valid reason for withholding information.

[StevieG]

trying to do multiple qoutes

Edited February 17, 2010 by StevieG

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='Earogema' date='16 February 2010 - 08:46 PM' timestamp='1266381987' post='2187067']
Do keep in mind this was the same alliance that attacked FoA for no reason and told people to do something about it. Then when they did, we kept warring for 9 days before finally being convinced by somebody who wanted TSO to get killed.

If you were honestly going to rely on us to care for TOP/IRON you're just being ridiculous. Not only that, but it's no secret that TOP/IRON don't like us. Considering that happened to be why TOP/IRON declared on C&G, I think that's a valid reason for withholding information.
[/quote]

I would agree with Eargoema here. \m/ was under no obligation to tell TOP/IRON about the forthcoming peace agreement. I would have hoped that Grub would have done so but I haven't yet seen an explanation for why he didn't (sorry if that has been answered; haven't read every thread about this issue).

[StevieG]

[quote name='Crymson' date='17 February 2010 - 04:41 PM' timestamp='1266381691' post='2187060']
They were my own words.
[/quote]


[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='17 February 2010 - 04:43 PM' timestamp='1266381822' post='2187065']
regardless of whose words they were, they were put on an official TOP document and signed off by TOP gov.
[/quote]

Exactly what I was talking about. A little ground needs to be given on both sides in my view.

TOP must understand that the way it was said comes off as an official view, and understand the perception that C&G and co take from it. While on the other hand C&G and co must realise that there is the possibility that certain peoples judgments can be emotionally clouded over past events and see through it.

[Fantastico]

[quote name='Earogema' date='16 February 2010 - 10:46 PM' timestamp='1266381987' post='2187067']
Do keep in mind this was the same alliance that attacked FoA for no reason and told people to do something about it. Then when they did, we kept warring for 9 days before finally being convinced by somebody who wanted TSO to get killed.

If you were honestly going to rely on us to care for TOP/IRON you're just being ridiculous. Not only that, but it's no secret that TOP/IRON don't like us. Considering that happened to be why TOP/IRON declared on C&G, I think that's a valid reason for withholding information.
[/quote]

Hey, all I care about here is that as many facts as possible are revealed regarding the real motivations behind this war.

Some leaders involved in this mess want to pin the blame on anyone but themselves. At least you don't do that and I greatly respect that.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Fantastico

[Hayzell]

[quote name='Denial' date='16 February 2010 - 10:07 PM' timestamp='1266376056' post='2186813']
No, Archon stated that C&G would enter against TOP and IRON if they attacked one of our allies. That is like saying water is wet, the sky is blue, IRON posters are hopeless, or Bob Janova is a hypocrite. It should be no surprise to anyone that Complaints & Grievances would defend any ally that found itself a victim of aggression. [/quote]

Right. And based on the above observation it was strategically decided (by undoubtedly one of the greatest military minds of our time and confirmed by others) that the best strategic move would have been to cripple CnG from being able to effectively counter the blitz which would have otherwise been launched against CnG allies. Obviously in hindsight the move seems to be our greatest folly, but based on the evidence that we had at the time (\m/ not peacing out) it was strategically sound. It was so strategically sound, in fact, that it caused you all to put pressure on \m/ to peace out, so that you would have enough resources and a rallying cry strong enough to potentially defeat us, presumably because otherwise our move would have assured our coalition's victory.

[quote]
1. Crymson, whilst in leadership, famously stated that TOP & co were taking this opportunity to "bloody up" Complaints & Grievances, in a time where we were perceived to be most vulnerable, because they saw us as a threat.[/quote]

I'm not sure where he specifically said that, but in our DoW the reasoning was not that "you were vulnerable and we wanted to destroy you" so much as it was "we were likely to engage you anyway in a war we happened to agree with morally and intellectually, saw you as an overall threat, and decided the best thing to do would be to pre empt you as it as it coalesed well with our desire to enter that war, win that war, and defeat (which means to somewhat weaken relatively, not utterly annihilate) what we perceived to be a threat all at the same time".


[quote]2. Crymson and other senior TOP members have also stated that they sought to continue this war against C&G until they no longer considered us a threat. [/quote]

Our DoW states we wished to [i]defeat [/i]you, which was only ever insofar as we wished to win the war, militarily and for the moral cause, in addition to reducing the perceived relative threat.

[quote]3. TOP only ever became interested in white peace the moment they saw the odds were against them.[/quote]

No, TOP became interested in white peace when we saw the conclusion of the war we initially joined in as a part of. Though increasing our security and reducing you as a threat was a goal, the ultimate justification and cause for the war was to help the Polaris side achieve victory; that front having come to its own conclusion left us involved in a war we should have peaced out of with everyone else, as the primary reasons for our entry had ended.

[quote]
4. Why, exactly, would we accept white peace after we've been aggressively attacked for absolutely no reason, by a bunch of conniving, underhanded miscreants? [/quote]

Because, it is intellectually inconsistent to defame your enemies as "hegemony cronies", "bullies" "conniving underehanded miscreants" etc. for being motivated for similar reasons to your own. How is it that TOP being motivated to remove a threat (while in the context of a war it agrees with and in a particular situation which was thought to be strategically advantageous) so much worse than CnG being motivated to eliminate TOP as a threat? If you were intellectually honest you would see our [i]motivation ([/i]or rather, one of the several motivators)[i] [/i]was the same as yours are now, and if our motivations are understandable then we aren't the heinous villains you portray us as.

[quote]
Thus, if we hypothetically accept your argument of "strategy" and "removing a threat" as a valid case for initiating or continuing a war, then Complaints & Grievances extending this war should be just as acceptable in your eyes as TOP & IRON initiating it. If not more acceptable, considering TOP & IRON clearly displayed their capacity as a threat to C&G, whereas TOP & IRON only had a 'belief' (Crymson's own term) that we were a threat because we said bad things in public about them now and then.[/quote]

Not entirely. Removal of a threat serves as a good [i]contributing [/i]reason to wage war, but when it becomes the sole purpose of a war it becomes a terrible reason. You cannot [i]completely [/i]remove any alliance as a threat unless you are willing to pressure them into disbanding, force them to pay exorbitant reparations, or wage war against them indefinitely. The previous are all tactics that the last major war sought to abolish. Thus it might be a good reason to engage a particular alliance in a war, assuming there is a conflict they are or will be drawn in to and that conflict itself has proper justification, but is not a good reason to declare out of the blue in the middle of peace time -- a picture you all seem intent on painting as what happened.

I'm willing to admit that you do have more a reason to view us a threat than we you (there is even a small chance we were mistaken in viewing you as a threat ) but that reason in itself is not sufficient grounds for a war that seeks to "remove us as a threat", as it would require at least one of the above mentioned methods.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Hayzell' date='17 February 2010 - 12:04 AM' timestamp='1266383085' post='2187104']
Right. And based on the above observation it was strategically decided (by undoubtedly one of the greatest military minds of our time and confirmed by others) that the best strategic move would have been to cripple CnG from being able to effectively counter the blitz which would have otherwise been launched against CnG allies. Obviously in hindsight the move seems to be our greatest folly, but based on the evidence that we had at the time (\m/ not peacing out) it was strategically sound. It was so strategically sound, in fact, that it caused you all to put pressure on \m/ to peace out, so that you would have enough resources and a rallying cry strong enough to potentially defeat us, presumably because otherwise our move would have assured our coalition's victory.
[/quote]
So what you're basically saying is that you were winning until you started losing. And no, placing a check on your opponent's king that opens you up to be mated [i]isn't[/i] strategically sound.

[Kryievla]

[quote name='Earogema' date='16 February 2010 - 07:54 PM' timestamp='1266375272' post='2186767']
I did address your point then. I'll reiterate-

[b]\m/, PC, and FOK had no idea TOP was going to attack. These were 3 of the 4 people who could have contacted TOP about the result of the talks. They did not because they knew not that TOP/IRON were going to attack. [/b]

Therefore the only party capable of telling TOP/IRON was Npo- Grub. Peace was underway when TOP/IRON attacked. Before peace talks were stalled on the point of Grub admitting he wasn't a world policeman and \m/ admitting they were wrong and having to follow their own charter- Nothing was coming of these talks, and tbh, both parties just wanted to fight at the time. It was the same situation as when Desperado walked out on the talks in WWE because "they weren't going anywhere" but then peace occurred a day or two later.

There was no interest in escalating this war from any of those parties. NpO wanted \m/ to suffer. \m/ called on PC and only PC and expected only PC. FOK came in for PC- This is where the war escalates. They just wanted to defend PC though. TOP/IRON should have just wanted to defend NSO, but they acted aggressively.
[/quote]

Bolded bit mine. Is it certain that FOK didn't know that TOP was going to attack? I saw that MK & FOK held a treaty; it seems like the sort of thing one would tell a MDoAP partner.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='16 February 2010 - 11:21 PM' timestamp='1266384066' post='2187124']
So what you're basically saying is that you were winning until you started losing. And no, placing a check on your opponent's king that opens you up to be mated [i]isn't[/i] strategically sound.
[/quote]
That's what I had been saying for this entire war.

So like \m/ is treatied to Rok, PC, and Corp. All three are aligned on that side of the war. I mean, how could you [i]not[/i] see that coming with the light terms that NpO were giving to \m/?

[Earogema]

[quote name='Kryievla' date='16 February 2010 - 11:28 PM' timestamp='1266384486' post='2187140']
Bolded bit mine. Is it certain that FOK didn't know that TOP was going to attack? I saw that MK & FOK held a treaty; it seems like the sort of thing one would tell a MDoAP partner.
[/quote]
I already back-peddled and admit that \m/ actually knew. Seeing as how I was proven wrong there, it is possible I was wrong elsewhere >_>

EDIT: Although I should say I didn't, our leadership did.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Earogema

[Kryievla]

[quote name='Earogema' date='16 February 2010 - 10:31 PM' timestamp='1266384706' post='2187151']
I already back-peddled and admit that \m/ actually knew. Seeing as how I was proven wrong there, it is possible I was wrong elsewhere >_>

EDIT: Although I should say I didn't, our leadership did.
[/quote]

Gotcha, ty, fast moving thread.

I would like to know if FOK was told though.

[Crymson]

[quote name='StevieG' date='16 February 2010 - 09:53 PM' timestamp='1266382399' post='2187086']
Exactly what I was talking about. A little ground needs to be given on both sides in my view.

TOP must understand that the way it was said comes off as an official view, and understand the perception that C&G and co take from it. While on the other hand C&G and co must realise that there is the possibility that certain peoples judgments can be emotionally clouded over past events and see through it.
[/quote]

For my part, I do understand.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Crymson