Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[Lenex]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='17 February 2010 - 07:55 PM' timestamp='1266465321' post='2188776']
No, you're missing his point.

Had they or Grub been [b]genuinely[/b] concerned with achieving peace and de-escalating the conflict (as claimed in the OP), given that they had advance warning of the impending attack and knowledge that the Polar-\m/ peace was nearing a successful conclusion, surely someone should have approached TOP & co. to either stall or stand-down the attack?

Unless of course there wasn't a genuine desire for peace or a de-escalation of the conflict, of course. Which is fine in my books, to be honest - just !@#$@#$ own it and be honest, instead of playing with around with this out-and-out !@#$%^&*, for $%&@s sakes.
[/quote]

Well in reality, a certain somebody in MK was putting in more time than I think you know to secure peace with \m/ and Polar. Certain people were not cooperating obviously. There is no game being played when Archon said they were trying to secure peace, they were.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Lenex

[joracy]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='18 February 2010 - 12:28 AM' timestamp='1266470937' post='2188965']
It's been fairly well established that the TOP attack was leaked to Archon before it happened.

What hasn't been established is whether or not Archon, upon learning of the TOP attack, went to \m/ and told them to peace out Polar so this war would develop.
[/quote]

I'm not disputing that, I'm saying I don't see why it was Archon's job to run over and tell TOP this.

[mushi]

[quote name='joracy' date='18 February 2010 - 03:27 PM' timestamp='1266470832' post='2188962']
The game changed when TOP et al hit. MK, and many others worked incredibly hard to secure a peace deal between \m/ and polar. Anybody who denies that is so incredibly out of touch with reality, it's not humorous. But when TOP et al hit, things changed dramatically.
[/quote]
sure they did

[Haflinger]

[quote name='joracy' date='18 February 2010 - 12:35 AM' timestamp='1266471317' post='2188979']
I'm not disputing that, I'm saying I don't see why it was Archon's job to run over and tell TOP this.
[/quote]
You aren't getting it.

\m/ had refused Polar's really simple, easy terms for quite some time. Then TOP is planning an attack, the plans get leaked, and suddenly \m/ is rushing to Polar to say sorry, we accept.

It's really obvious that someone talked to them to tell them what was going down. The odds of that being a coincidence are so long as to be ... well, let's just say I have a bridge to sell you if you think that was a coincidence.

[joracy]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='18 February 2010 - 12:38 AM' timestamp='1266471517' post='2188985']
You aren't getting it.

\m/ had refused Polar's really simple, easy terms for quite some time. Then TOP is planning an attack, the plans get leaked, and suddenly \m/ is rushing to Polar to say sorry, we accept.

It's really obvious that someone talked to them to tell them what was going down. The odds of that being a coincidence are so long as to be ... well, let's just say I have a bridge to sell you if you think that was a coincidence.
[/quote]

Which had nothing to do with what I posted. They are two entirely separate arguments that Umar proposed. I'm sorry if it was unclear what I was talking about.

Edited February 18, 2010 by joracy

[Bob]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='18 February 2010 - 12:38 AM' timestamp='1266471517' post='2188985']
You aren't getting it.

\m/ had refused Polar's really simple, easy terms for quite some time. Then TOP is planning an attack, the plans get leaked, and suddenly \m/ is rushing to Polar to say sorry, we accept.

It's really obvious that someone talked to them to tell them what was going down. The odds of that being a coincidence are so long as to be ... well, let's just say I have a bridge to sell you if you think that was a coincidence.
[/quote]
This is a chain of I clauses, you ready?

Polaris to MK, MK to RoK, RoK to \m/. I don't know if that is how it worked or how it worked at all, but all have required information clauses I would be willing to bet. As a result, \m/ probably would end up with the knowledge, if treaty obligations were followed.

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='18 February 2010 - 06:38 AM' timestamp='1266471517' post='2188985']
You aren't getting it.

\m/ had refused Polar's really simple, easy terms for quite some time. Then TOP is planning an attack, the plans get leaked, and suddenly \m/ is rushing to Polar to say sorry, we accept.
[/quote]

So?

I mean, where is the conspirancy?

It makes full sense that, when told about TOP/IRON going to attack, CnG pressures \m/ into peacing NpO in order to avoid the escalation.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='18 February 2010 - 12:55 AM' timestamp='1266472511' post='2189012']
So?

I mean, where is the conspirancy?

It makes full sense that, when told about TOP/IRON going to attack, CnG pressures \m/ into peacing NpO in order to avoid the escalation.
[/quote]
Strategically outmaneuvering someone is bad unless you're the one doing the outmaneuvering, apparently.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='17 February 2010 - 03:33 PM' timestamp='1266442401' post='2187993']
A present threat will remain a threat in the future unless you deal with it. CnG has all the right to seek a guarantee that they'll not suffer further agression. A White Peace, at least in the way TOP/IRON demand it, doesn't serve this purpose.
[/quote]

first, there is no known knowledge that TOP/IRON is a future threat, thus no actual knowledge that if peace is given right now that either one would consider further aggression against CnG.

second, i never once stated that CnG should give TOP/IRON white peace. i tried to stick with conducting peace talks and attempted to never state white peace, as i certainly feel that TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN should pay some sort of reps for their aggression.

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='17 February 2010 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1266452728' post='2188370']
I wasn't asking you but anyways. First, I think it went from a defensive war to an offensive once the tide was turned in favor of CnG. Second, claiming that TIFDTT or whatever(really, we need a better name lol) should be reduced to zero tech and whatnot is not justified. At the most I can certainly understand CnG wanting reps but the [i][b]least[/b][/i] that you can do is write up a rough draft and offer it to TIFDTT leadership for consideration.
[/quote]

even i don't believe that CnG have somehow become the aggressors because they refuse to give TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN white peace. i also don't believe that none of those alliances actually deserve white peace considering the actions they took that began this whole moronic episode.

though i do agree that peace talks should be underway regardless of what irrational fears some gov in CnG hold in regards to TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN. in my opinion, having been on the side of the Heg before, it is when you simply attempt to obliterate your enemy that you end up turning a semi-hostile alliance into an alliance that will plot vengeance at every chance possible. Look to history and see that this holds true. The CoaLUEtion and their initial demands against the Orders set up GWII/GWIII. Polaris and their political moves (along with TOP's and other alliances paranoia in regards to Polaris) helped set up the SPW (though it was terms such as those given by Gremlins that helped ease much of the hatred and turn it into a friendship).

you see it time and again that if you attempt to destroy an alliance you will end up turning that alliance completely against you. if you are victorious, you should ensure that you give some mercy (not total mercy as in white peace but some mercy such as paying for tech or lower reps). MK and those in CnG should know how easy it is to hate an alliance because they have attempted to destroy you or hit you with huge reps. i honestly hope that CnG remembers this for if/when TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN surrender. otherwise you will only set up a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='17 February 2010 - 06:33 PM' timestamp='1266453223' post='2188383']
There's a difference between being the agressor and being on the offense. Just because Germany was the agressor during WWII in Europe, doesn't mean they were on the offense the entire war.
[/quote]

OOC: to attempt to tie this into WWII is impossible as there is no actual country to invade. the only time that Germany was not the aggressor (which does not necessarily only constitute offensive actions) was when Germany was being invaded. Then one could argue that Germany went on the defensive. up until that point, there was only the retaking of conquered land which in and of itself does not make the other side the aggressor.

given that CN does not operate in that manner whatsoever, means that TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN are and will always be the aggressor. there simply is no way for that to switch to CnG given the actual dynamics of CN war.

[quote name='Prodigal Moon' date='17 February 2010 - 09:28 PM' timestamp='1266463720' post='2188730']
If an individual gains control of a defensive situation, and then attempts to inflict punishment on his assailant, then yes, he will be judged to be acting aggressively. There is such a thing as "reasonable force."

I wouldn't necessarily say any of that even applies here, but the principle exists.
[/quote]

reasonable force is typically associated with kicking a person when they are down. from what i have gathered, there is no way at this moment that TOP/IRON are anywhere close to being down. reasonable force on the other hand, is not simply the defender gaining control and inflicting damage. OOC: if i got jumped and manage to turn it around and beat my aggressor to the ground, i would still be able to claim self-defense. now if i stomped the guy's head in after he was laying unconcious on the ground, then i would be charged with murder as that was beyond reasonable force. but reasonable force is not breached just by me beating the crap out of my aggressor.

[quote name='SpoiL' date='17 February 2010 - 09:44 PM' timestamp='1266464665' post='2188758']
TOP [i]aggressively[/i] preempted C&G from attacking them. That was the reason for this particular front of this war that should have ended with NpO-\m/. Who's fault is it that the war continues? Well, who is the one calling it a separate war; who is the one playing semantics with the word 'aggressive', ignoring the defensive implications. I know you stand to gain from it, which is why we hear all the spin. And when confronted with the reality, it is why you resort back to "but they attacked us!".
[/quote]

in all honesty, i am unsure you can go that far with a preemptive strike. IRON had not even declared in defense of NSO to even get CnG involved yet. at the point that TOP/IRON DoWed CnG there was absolutely no cause whatsoever to assume CnG would roll against TOP or IRON. now if TOP DoWed CnG when IRON declared on a CnG ally in defense of NSO, i could possibly see that since there would be an actual cause to think that CnG were a threat. but at the juncture that TOP/IRON DoWed, there just was absolutely no cause since there was no treaty obligation that would have caused CnG to enter the war against TOP/IRON.

in my opinion, that is basically the reason that this cannot be tied into the Polar-\m/ war since IRON never actually entered that war at all. Neither did TOP and neither did CnG. had IRON entered the war in defense of NSO, then you could make a bridge between this war and the Polar-\m/ war, but TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN bypassed that bridge and jumped into new territory.

[Gn0xious Jr]

[quote name='SpoiL' date='17 February 2010 - 07:44 PM' timestamp='1266464665' post='2188758']
TOP [i]aggressively[/i] preempted C&G from attacking them. That was the reason for this particular front of this war that should have ended with NpO-\m/. Who's fault is it that the war continues? Well, who is the one calling it a separate war; who is the one playing semantics with the word 'aggressive', ignoring the defensive implications. I know you stand to gain from it, which is why we hear all the spin. And when confronted with the reality, it is why you resort back to "but they attacked us!".
[/quote]

Just a few things to correct here...
The preemptive attack on C&G was to negate C&G's COUNTER to TOP/IRON supporting Polaris's side. C&G was not plotting to preemptively attack TOP/IRON. If they attacked C&G's allies, then yes, C&G would counter. TOP/IRON didn't want that, so they preemptively attacked and highlighted the "we just don't like you" in their CB.

Attacking a non-combatant is aggressive/offensive. Had TOP/IRON attacked combatants treatied to C&G, bringing C&G in to counter, it'd be an entirely different scenario and thus cannot be used to judge the events that ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE. What happened? TOP/IRON declared preemptively out of fear/paranoia. They attacked nations who, at the time, WERE UNINVOLVED IN THE CONFLICT. After realizing the consequences of the decision they simply want to say "my bad, my bad" and have it be forgotten? I'm sorry, but someone rushing into my house, destroying my property, will not be able to say "whoops, you know, I thought you were going to do something that didn't happen... my bad... truce?"

[quote name='SpoiL' date='17 February 2010 - 07:44 PM' timestamp='1266464665' post='2188758']
And when confronted with the reality, it is why you resort back to "but they attacked us!".
[/quote]
Funny, when confronted with the reality, it seems everyone else resorts back to "but C&G would have countered to defend their allies had we attacked their allies, so instead we'll just cut out the middle man, !@#$ our pants, and demand white peace..."

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='18 February 2010 - 07:02 AM' timestamp='1266472949' post='2189024']first, there is no known knowledge that TOP/IRON is a future threat, thus no actual knowledge that if peace is given right now that either one would consider further aggression against CnG.

second, i never once stated that CnG should give TOP/IRON white peace. i tried to stick with conducting peace talks and attempted to never state white peace, as i certainly feel that TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN should pay some sort of reps for their aggression.[/quote]

There is a material proof that TOP/IRON will remain a threat in the future: The declaration of war itself, with his "we don't like you" CB.

So, there are two issues here: The reparations, and the guarantees that this isn't gonna happen again.

About the reps, it's clear that the longer this goes, the higher the reps.

About the guarantees... has TOP, at least, acknowelded that their course of action was totally unacceptable, and that in the future they will respect the community standards?

Edited February 18, 2010 by Krashnaia

[Nizzle]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='17 February 2010 - 11:37 PM' timestamp='1266475055' post='2189097']
There is a material proof that TOP/IRON will remain a threat in the future: The declaration of war itself, with his "we don't like you" CB.

So, there are two issues here: The reparations, and the guarantees that this isn't gonna happen again.

About the reps, it's clear that the longer this goes, the higher the reps.

About the guarantees... has TOP, at least, acknowelded that their course of action was totally unacceptable, and that in the future they will respect the community standards?
[/quote]

lolreally?

Are you going to ask them to respect community standards when your side was up in arms over Grub enforcing community standards?

You are so luck you are in MA, because you gave a line that would have been golden in an earlier post. All that about "they are our sworn enemies" and such.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='18 February 2010 - 12:37 AM' timestamp='1266475055' post='2189097']
There is a material proof that TOP/IRON will remain a threat in the future: The declaration of war itself, with his "we don't like you" CB.

So, there are two issues here: The reparations, and the guarantees that this isn't gonna happen again.

About the reps, it's clear that the longer this goes, the higher the reps.

About the guarantees... has TOP, at least, acknowelded that their course of action was totally unacceptable, and that in the future they will respect the community standards?
[/quote]

1) the DoW stated that TOP thought CnG were a threat, not "we don't like you". the longer this goes, the more of a threat CnG actually becomes to TOP and vice versa. again we are delving into the realm of self-fulfilling prophecies.

2) as for reps- the higher the reps, again the more TOP will most likely see CnG as a future threat and vice versa since instead of ending the hostility, harsh reps will only ensure hostility in the future. MK is a prime example of an alliance that became hostile towards the alliance that not only attempted to destroy them under the pretense of "future threat" as well as imposed harsh reps.

3) the only way to guarantee this won't happen again is for two things to happen. first, CnG needs to destroy enough of TOP to ensure that TOP is not a viable threat in the short term future and second, CnG needs to give mercy (again not white peace) to show TOP some goodwill. Yes, i realize that this could very well bite CnG in the $@! by allowing TOP to rebuild and hit them again, but if CnG shows goodwill by not imposing extreme reps or terms, then TOP may find itself without as many friends in the future if it aggressively attacks CnG again.

4) wait, didnt MK and CnG !@#$%*, whine, and moan about how Polaris was acting as "world police" because Polaris attempted to dictate "community standards"? why would they less than a month after that attempt to act just like Polaris and do the thing they supposedly hated?

5) also, if you wish to discuss unacceptable behavior- there are 4 alliances fighting against TOP that declared an aggressive preemptive strike without attempting diplomacy on the pretense that another alliance was a "threat" against them. this happened within the last 3 months.


edit: dangit, you got me agreeing with Nizzle.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Dochartaigh

[Nizzle]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='17 February 2010 - 11:55 PM' timestamp='1266476151' post='2189138']
edit: dangit, you got me agreeing with Nizzle.
[/quote]

It's alright, even a broken clock is right twice a day

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='18 February 2010 - 12:55 AM' timestamp='1266472511' post='2189012']
So?

I mean, where is the conspirancy?

It makes full sense that, when told about TOP/IRON going to attack, CnG pressures \m/ into peacing NpO in order to avoid the escalation.
[/quote]
Well, if you call what is happening now "avoid the escalation" then I have a very large bridge to sell you

What is happening now is exactly what whoever pressured \m/ to peace out wanted.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Nizzle' date='18 February 2010 - 12:58 AM' timestamp='1266476297' post='2189143']
It's alright, even a broken clock is right twice a day
[/quote]

so true. we must really get our clocks fixed someday.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='18 February 2010 - 01:01 AM' timestamp='1266476505' post='2189147']
Well, if you call what is happening now "avoid the escalation" then I have a very large bridge to sell you

What is happening now is exactly what whoever pressured \m/ to peace out wanted.
[/quote]

Haf- seriously, where is the proof that CnG were wanting TOP/IRON to preemptively strike them? to my knowledge the plan to preemptively strike CnG came from TOP/IRON not from CnG or Polaris. i would say that TOP/IRON got exactly what they wanted and then quite a bit more that they did not want.

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='18 February 2010 - 07:55 AM' timestamp='1266476151' post='2189138']
1) the DoW stated that TOP thought CnG were a threat, not "we don't like you". the longer this goes, the more of a threat CnG actually becomes to TOP and vice versa. again we are delving into the realm of self-fulfilling prophecies.[/quote]

The DoW stated that they were attacking with no CB. Someone who thinks it's acceptable to attack you without a CB, is likely to do it again in the future.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='18 February 2010 - 07:55 AM' timestamp='1266476151' post='2189138']2) as for reps- the higher the reps, again the more TOP will most likely see CnG as a future threat and vice versa since instead of ending the hostility, harsh reps will only ensure hostility in the future. MK is a prime example of an alliance that became hostile towards the alliance that not only attempted to destroy them under the pretense of "future threat" as well as imposed harsh reps.[/quote]

If harsh reps pay or not on the long run is matter for another debate. The only thing I point here is that the longer this conflict resembles, both in lenght and damage, to the Karma War, the more likely reps will resemble those imposed over the NPO.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='18 February 2010 - 07:55 AM' timestamp='1266476151' post='2189138']3) the only way to guarantee this won't happen again is for two things to happen. first, CnG needs to destroy enough of TOP to ensure that TOP is not a viable threat in the short term future and second, CnG needs to give mercy (again not white peace) to show TOP some goodwill. Yes, i realize that this could very well bite CnG in the $@! by allowing TOP to rebuild and hit them again, but if CnG shows goodwill by not imposing extreme reps or terms, then TOP may find itself without as many friends in the future if it aggressively attacks CnG again.[/quote]

I agree with the first part. About the second, I acknowelde it's a viable strategy, through not necessary the best course of action. Anyway, will be CnG's decission.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='18 February 2010 - 07:55 AM' timestamp='1266476151' post='2189138']4) wait, didnt MK and CnG !@#$%*, whine, and moan about how Polaris was acting as "world police" because Polaris attempted to dictate "community standards"? why would they less than a month after that attempt to act just like Polaris and do the thing they supposedly hated? .[/quote]

Just for the record, MK and CnG aren't the only ones fighting this war. And in this same thread, some people involved has expressed that they actually care about the community standards.

On the other hand, there is a big difference between trying to dictate community standards to be followed by third parties in their relations, and trying to dictate community standards regarding how others threat you and you allies. I mean, messing in the affairs of others could be considered acting like a World Police, but defending yourself and your allies is not.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='18 February 2010 - 07:55 AM' timestamp='1266476151' post='2189138']5) also, if you wish to discuss unacceptable behavior- there are 4 alliances fighting against TOP that declared an aggressive preemptive strike without attempting diplomacy on the pretense that another alliance was a "threat" against them. this happened within the last 3 months.[/quote]

Right now I only remember the TPF war at New Year's Eve. This was a war with a full valid CB: spionage. So the comparation doesn't apply.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='18 February 2010 - 07:55 AM' timestamp='1266476151' post='2189138']edit: dangit, you got me agreeing with Nizzle. [/quote]

So, need further proof that something is wrong about your stance?

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='18 February 2010 - 02:03 AM' timestamp='1266476623' post='2189151']
Haf- seriously, where is the proof that CnG were wanting TOP/IRON to preemptively strike them? to my knowledge the plan to preemptively strike CnG came from TOP/IRON not from CnG or Polaris. i would say that TOP/IRON got exactly what they wanted and then quite a bit more that they did not want.
[/quote]
Let me outline the scenario.

A. Someone wanted TOP and/or IRON's face smashed in.
B. TOP/IRON decided to preempt C&G.
C. The someone in step A found out about it, contacted \m/ and got them to agree to a separate peace, thus setting up the current scenario.

The most likely candidates are Archon, Londo, Denial, Hoo or Xiphosis, but there are plenty of others as well.

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='18 February 2010 - 08:01 AM' timestamp='1266476505' post='2189147']
Well, if you call what is happening now "avoid the escalation" then I have a very large bridge to sell you [/quote]

If you understood from what I wrote that I called what is happening "avoiding the escalation", then I'm not surprised that you have a very large bridge to sell me.

My only question is who sold it to you first.

[quote name='Haflinger' date='18 February 2010 - 08:01 AM' timestamp='1266476505' post='2189147']What is happening now is exactly what whoever pressured \m/ to peace out wanted.[/quote]

I kneel before your mind-reading capabilities.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Krashnaia

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='18 February 2010 - 03:14 AM' timestamp='1266480858' post='2189341']
I kneel before your mind-reading capabilities.
[/quote]
Well, it's either that or ... well ... find me on IRC to continue this conversation, as the terminology is not suitable for this arena.

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='18 February 2010 - 09:16 AM' timestamp='1266480993' post='2189346']
Well, it's either that or ... well ... find me on IRC to continue this conversation, as the terminology is not suitable for this arena.
[/quote]

Would be better if you realize that the debate isn't going anywhere until we all stop making assumptions based in suspictions with no other material support than air.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Krashnaia

[popsumpot]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='18 February 2010 - 04:02 PM' timestamp='1266472949' post='2189024']
second, i never once stated that CnG should give TOP/IRON white peace. i tried to stick with conducting peace talks and attempted to never state white peace, as i certainly feel that TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN should pay some sort of reps for their aggression.
[/quote]

Can I assume then that Polar will be too paying reps for their aggression?

fake edit: I picked your post randomly out of the many in this thread that expressed the sentiment of "reps should be paid for aggression"

[StevieG]

[quote name='Heft' date='18 February 2010 - 09:24 AM' timestamp='1266441890' post='2187981']
It's been quite awhile since I've seen a single word run so far down into the ground as the word "threat" has been here. There seem to be two basic and distinct meanings of it being used here, and most of the disagreement comes from either not recognizing or ignoring which use is being employed at a given time.

There's the indefinite, future threat that TOP seems to have believed CnG to likely be, and then there is the imminent, current threat that TOP believed CnG to assuredly be.

The first was due to the posturing and lack of understanding on both sides that had gone on for months. The second was due to the fact that once IRON entered the war in defense of their treaty partners (us) then CnG would have been guaranteed to enter the war in some fashion, thus ensuring a military confrontation between the "TIFDTT" (or whatever) group and CnG, regardless of entry point.

The first "threat" may have led to distrust and hostility, but it was the second "threat" that led to the attacks. At least, as I understand it.

This dialogue would make a whole lot more sense if everyone stopped conflating these two concepts.
[/quote]


[quote name='SpoiL' date='18 February 2010 - 03:44 PM' timestamp='1266464665' post='2188758']
TOP [i]aggressively[/i] preempted C&G from attacking them. That was the reason for this particular front of this war that should have ended with NpO-\m/. Who's fault is it that the war continues? Well, who is the one calling it a separate war; who is the one playing semantics with the word 'aggressive', ignoring the defensive implications. I know you stand to gain from it, which is why we hear all the spin. And when confronted with the reality, it is why you resort back to "but they attacked us!".
[/quote]

Both these posts hit the nail right on the head.

Playing the "but they attacked us" card is a load of BS. C&G and co have more to gain by prolonging the war, and have taken a strategical decision to batter TOP and co down as much as possible, or get heavy reps. The main reason for this is that they beleive TOP and co may come back for them in the future, so they want to weaken them as much as possible.

Its not defensive action taking place on the majority of C&G and cos fronts any more, as they clearly have the upperhand.

All that being said, I dont harbour any grudges or resentment for all of this, as they are doing the best they can for their alliances and friends and future safety regardless of how founded their "paranoia" is. I am pretty sure most would do the same being put in their position. I cant find any fault really with it.

Where I am finding faults is various members posting in this thread that do not recognise or will not admit to the obvious. As well as this there seems a very biased and non objective posting occurence. Also, there is a lot of statements coming out as facts, that are either completely wrong, or grosely misrepresent situations that have occured.

[Tomcat]

[quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 12:31 AM' timestamp='1266481878' post='2189383']
Playing the "but they attacked us" card is a load of BS. C&G and co have more to gain by prolonging the war
[/quote]
And the attackers have much to gain by ending the war now that they aren't winning it anymore.
Since when is being attacked not a valid reason for war?

I'm going to ask you to do something very difficult, and that is to put yourself in somebody else's shoes.
If TORN was suddenly attacked without treaty, by a large group of tech heavy alliances who absolutely devastated the entire upper tier of TORN nations, and then suddenly, once your allies jumped in to help turn around the war, the attacking alliances immediately started demanding an end to the conflict and white peace, what might your reaction be?

Edited February 18, 2010 by Tomcat