Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[StevieG]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='19 February 2010 - 10:45 AM' timestamp='1266533107' post='2190407']
They didn't entered a pre-existing war since they didn't declared on anyone fighting in the previous war.[/quote]

Is that your interpretation of not entering a pre-existing war? GOD had already declared that this was a Coalition War. Now I'm not saying that this alone justifies the pre-emptive action, but it is one of a number of things that promotes the theory of TOP and co already being paired off against C&G and co on opposite sides of a coalition war.

[quote name='Krashnaia']
They didn't also declared to back up NpO's motivations, [/quote]

Blatently false statement

[quote name='Krashnaia']
but due to their own motivations. [/quote]

Also a false statement if you are implying that it was the sole reason to war, which it seems you are from your above qoute.

[quote name='Krashnaia']
That's why this war has gone beyond the previous one, because it has different motivations, a different nature.
[/quote]

That is likely one of the reasons this war will be prolonged, but, still not even close to the main reason.

[StevieG]

[quote name='Tomcat' date='19 February 2010 - 10:58 AM' timestamp='1266533924' post='2190442']
TOP and IRON didn't know about the peace talks that had been going on for an entire week straight because TOP and IRON didn't care about the peace talks. They just wanted an opportunity to attack CnG.[/quote]

That is purely speculation

[quote name='Tomcat']
Was it PEA's obligation to inform CnG that they were going to attack them? I think we can all agree here that they had no obligation to give them advanced warning of the attack.

So, if the PEA had no obligation to warn CnG of the attack, then why would CnG have any obligation to warn them about the attack being a bad decision?

You didn't warn them about the upcoming war, so why would they warn you about the upcoming peace?
[/quote]

I agree fully. C&G had no obligation to inform Top and co about where they were in peace talks.

However, this means that C&G and co. cannot act like they did not wish to war with TOP and expect to be taken seriously. It also kind of lends maybe a slight amount of support to TOPs paranoia of how C&G wished to war with TOP. Playing the victim card does ake sense as a form of propoganda, but is not fully realistic or acurate.

[Gn0xious Jr]

[quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 02:56 PM' timestamp='1266533783' post='2190434']
Because the part of the DoW that stated they were joining in on NpOs side came prior. They did see C&G as a threat to them and beleived C&G were after them. It is clear that this is one of he reasons for war.[/quote]
already confirmed that a few posts above

[quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 02:56 PM' timestamp='1266533783' post='2190434']
Yes, they took pre-emptive aggresive action in joining in on NpOs side of the war in an attempt to nuetralise a major component in the opposite coalition.

There are many aspects of this war that are debatable, and whether a unprecedented(for the most part) action such as a pre-emptive strike is morally and even tactically wrong or not. But the above paragraph is most certainly not, as it is 100% unspinable fact.
[/quote]
It's 100% unspinable to you, because it is what you believe.

I think a more objective wording would be:
[i]They (PEA) took preemptive aggressive action in join in on NpO's side of the war, in an attempt to neutralize a non-combatant who would have become an opponent in the near future due to defensive treaties.[/i]

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='StevieG' date='19 February 2010 - 12:08 AM' timestamp='1266534495' post='2190467']
Is that your interpretation of not entering a pre-existing war? GOD had already declared that this was a Coalition War.[/quote]

Still TOP/IRON DoWed a Coalition that was not part of the war.

[quote name='StevieG' date='19 February 2010 - 12:08 AM' timestamp='1266534495' post='2190467']Blatently false statement.[/quote]

Because you say so, yeah.

[quote name='StevieG' date='19 February 2010 - 12:08 AM' timestamp='1266534495' post='2190467']Also a false statement if you are implying that it was the sole reason to war, which it seems you are from your above qoute.[/quote]

Beating down CnG had been high on TOP/IRON's agenda from long ago. Exploiting a perceived weakness to advance this objective was the [i]necessary[/i] reason for this war. Wouldn't had happened without it.

Without this motivation, TOP/IRON wouldn't have declared on CnG the way they did, totally going beyond NpO's objectives in the previous war. And Bob would be back a peaceful planet by now.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Krashnaia

[Dochartaigh]

okay, what does PEA stand for? i assume given the context i have seen it used, it includes TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN but not sure if it includes anyone else.

[Gn0xious Jr]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='18 February 2010 - 03:44 PM' timestamp='1266536672' post='2190543']
okay, what does PEA stand for? i assume given the context i have seen it used, it includes TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN but not sure if it includes anyone else.
[/quote]
It started a few pages back, it stands for Pre Emptive Attackers (PEA).

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Gn0xious Jr' date='18 February 2010 - 05:46 PM' timestamp='1266536775' post='2190548']
It started a few pages back, it stands for Pre Emptive Attackers (PEA).
[/quote]

thank you. now back to the regularly scheduled debates.

[StevieG]

[quote name='Gn0xious Jr' date='19 February 2010 - 11:23 AM' timestamp='1266535404' post='2190502']
already confirmed that a few posts above[/quote]

Then why did you bring up "failing to see where such and such"? Never mind, as long as you realise that the main reason for entering the war is the first reason given in the DoW. It has been admited that a few other smaller reasons may also have contributed to it.

[quote name='Gn0xious Jr']
It's 100% unspinable to you, because it is what you believe.[/quote]

Nope, its because it is undisputable. You have merely re worded it to be more vauge.

[quote name='Gn0xious Jr']
I think a more objective wording would be:
[i]They (PEA) took preemptive aggressive action in join in on NpO's side of the war, in an attempt to neutralize a non-combatant who would have become an opponent in the near future due to defensive treaties.[/i]
[/quote]

2 points

Peace mode nations were lined up to counter 1 day after certain alliances went in. "Near future" is extremely vague, and as so should not be used in objective wording. If your definition of "near future" reads within one day(maybe two at the most) then I can agree with that statement(provided the 2nd point is rectified). However, this is clearly not the definition of near future.

"in an attempt to nuetralize a non combatant" does not objectively portray the picture here. That does not come off as Neutral Point of View at all. It may be acurate in addition with a following line, but the wording is extremely biased. Rather, it should read.

[i]"They took pre-emptive aggresive action in joining in on NpOs side of the war in an attempt to neutralise a major component in the opposite coalition who had yet to engage"[/i]

This doesnt even potray the full situation, as there were peace mode nations ready and waiting to go into combat on a days notice. Maybe It needs to be expanded on, but for now I think it is a pretty objective view on the action that took place.

Edit: fixed quotes

Edited February 19, 2010 by StevieG

[Gn0xious Jr]

[quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1266536940' post='2190556']
Then why did you bring up "failing to see where such and such"? Never mind, as long as you realise that the main reason for entering the war is the first reason given in the DoW. It has been admited that a few other smaller reasons may also have contributed to it.[/quote]
no worries, RIGHT after i said "failing to blah blahbiddyblah blah" i responded to Bob saying that I saw in the DoW where they said they agreed with NpO, but that what you quoted didn't support your statement.
ALso, it looks like you quoted yourself, then put my name on it

I can see that "too vague" a statement is biased, painting TOP's DoW to be in the best light.
But when you get granular in the details, it paints TOP's DoW to be in a harsher light.
So in order to paint TOP's DoW in the best light, we should ignore the details.


[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='18 February 2010 - 03:47 PM' timestamp='1266536847' post='2190553']
thank you. now back to the regularly scheduled debates.
[/quote]
no u

edit: fixing quotes

Edited February 18, 2010 by Gn0xious Jr

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 05:49 PM' timestamp='1266536940' post='2190556']
Then why did you bring up "failing to see where such and such"? Never mind, as long as you realise that the main reason for entering the war is the first reason given in the DoW. It has been admited that a few other smaller reasons may also have contributed to it.
[/quote]

"For our part, however, [b]much our reason[/b] to enter this war lies in our desire to defeat those who have shown time and time again, in public and in private, that doing harm to us is high on their agenda---and that, indeed, they would take advantage of any advantageous opportunity to do so. This is a war they have brought upon themselves."

you have just been proven false. the main reason is not entering on behalf of Polaris by TOP's own mouth.

[Tenaya]

"Much our reason" does not mean "all our reason" or "our only reason".

It just means it's a large component. You know. "Much."

[Gn0xious Jr]

[quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1266536940' post='2190556']
Peace mode nations were lined up to counter 1 day after certain alliances went in. "Near future" is extremely vague, and as so should not be used in objective wording. If your definition of "near future" reads within one day(maybe two at the most) then I can agree with that statement(provided the 2nd point is rectified). However, this is clearly not the definition of near future.[/quote]
Definition of "near future" would be IF CnG's direct allies were attacked. IF that happened, CnG was prepared to enter in defense of her allies. So really the "near future" was dependent upon the aggressive side of the conflict's actions.

[quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1266536940' post='2190556']
"in an attempt to nuetralize a non combatant" does not objectively portray the picture here. That does not come off as Neutral Point of View at all. It may be acurate in addition with a following line, but the wording is extremely biased. Rather, it should read.

[i]"They took pre-emptive aggresive action in joining in on NpOs side of the war in an attempt to neutralise a major component in the opposite coalition who had yet to engage"[/i][/quote]
"major component in the opposite coalition" is a huge exaggeration. even though CnG's treaties showed where they'd enter into the conflict, [u]they were NOT CURRENTLY a part of the conflict[/u]. The "you were gonna be" arguments are based on IFs, and still doesn't (to me) justify aggressive action. I understand that they felt it was in their best interest, that it would give them an edge, but it has never occurred to me to declare war on someone who has been uninvolved in the conflict.

[quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1266536940' post='2190556']
This doesnt even potray the full situation, as there were peace mode nations ready and waiting to go into combat on a days notice. Maybe It needs to be expanded on, but for now I think it is a pretty objective view on the action that took place.
[/quote]
preparation is something to be gawked at now? IF attacked, either directly or through one of her allies, CnG was preparing the best options to defend/counter. CnG never looked at from the aggressor/offensive, that was all TOP.

[StevieG]

[quote name='Gn0xious Jr' date='19 February 2010 - 11:54 AM' timestamp='1266537294' post='2190572']
that what you quoted didn't support your statement. [/quote]
There is no point arguing this as it was just a simple comunication error.

[quote name='Gn0xious Jr']
I can see that "too vague" a statement is biased, painting TOP's DoW to be in the best light.
But when you get granular in the details, it paints TOP's DoW to be in a harsher light.
So in order to paint TOP's DoW in the best light, we should ignore the details.
[/quote]

"Near Future" is too vague. My statement previously remains undisputed.


[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='19 February 2010 - 11:58 AM' timestamp='1266537504' post='2190580']
"For our part, however, [b]much our reason[/b] to enter this war lies in our desire to defeat those who have shown time and time again, in public and in private, that doing harm to us is high on their agenda---and that, indeed, they would take advantage of any advantageous opportunity to do so. This is a war they have brought upon themselves."

you have just been proven false. the main reason is not entering on behalf of Polaris by TOP's own mouth.
[/quote]

I already explained that the first points are usually the main reasons. That quote comes later. There is no doubt that this was one of the reasons however.

Then you might take in the likelyhood of Crymsons personal, coloured feelings coming out in his OP. Yes it was an Official TOP declaration, so it is understandable that C&G and co take this as coming from all of TOP, but the reality is that it most likely isnt. Also, TOP is one alliance in a coalition, albeit a very powerfull one.

Weigh up all the points I made, and you should be able to come to the Conclusion that the main reason for PEA entering aggresively against C&G is NOT "desiring to take out a future threat" which will enable "trying to re-establish the hegemony power". As is painted by most of you on C&G and cos side.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 06:23 PM' timestamp='1266539038' post='2190632']
I already explained that the first points are usually the main reasons. That quote comes later. There is no doubt that this was one of the reasons however.

Then you might take in the likelyhood of Crymsons personal, coloured feelings coming out in his OP. Yes it was an Official TOP declaration, so it is understandable that C&G and co take this as coming from all of TOP, but the reality is that it most likely isnt. Also, TOP is one alliance in a coalition, albeit a very powerfull one.

Weigh up all the points I made, and you should be able to come to the Conclusion that the main reason for PEA entering aggresively against C&G is NOT "desiring to take out a future threat" which will enable "trying to re-establish the hegemony power". As is painted by most of you on C&G and cos side.
[/quote]

you can explain all you want, it does not make it true. by the very wording to TOP, the main reason is not the first reason. so you can say whatever you want but TOP stated differently. also, regardless of whether it was Crymson's personal feelings, it got signed off by all of TOP Gov, not just Crymson, so it became the personal feelings of TOP not just Crymson.

all you points weigh next to nothing when compared to what TOP actually stated in their DoW so the conclusion can not logically be what you state in any way shape or form.

[StevieG]

[quote name='Gn0xious Jr' date='19 February 2010 - 12:12 PM' timestamp='1266538367' post='2190607']
Definition of "near future" would be IF CnG's direct allies were attacked. IF that happened, CnG was prepared to enter in defense of her allies. So really the "near future" was dependent upon the aggressive side of the conflict's actions.[/quote]


That is not the definition of "near future". It was clear as day that C&Gs allies were going to be attacked as Superfriends who hold a MADP with C&G, and would not have been strong enough to repell the PEA side.(I think that info is accurate, correct me if im wrong)

[quote name='Gn0xious Jr']
"major component in the opposite coalition" is a huge exaggeration. even though CnG's treaties showed where they'd enter into the conflict, [u]they were NOT CURRENTLY a part of the conflict[/u]. The "you were gonna be" arguments are based on IFs, and still doesn't (to me) justify aggressive action. I understand that they felt it was in their best interest, that it would give them an edge, but it has never occurred to me to declare war on someone who has been uninvolved in the conflict. [/quote]

It is not an exageration at all. C&G with their ties to Harmlins and Superfriends are most definetly a major component. The extent of them being lined up in the opposite coalition can be argued, I'll give you that. But I would still argue that they were lined up in the opposite coalition. The action as I said before is a little unprecedented in recent time at least, but there werent really any and, ifs, or buts. As I outlined above, and as stated by archon, C&G were going in when GOD were coutered (my own words)

[quote name='Gn0xious Jr']
preparation is something to be gawked at now? IF attacked, either directly or through one of her allies, CnG was preparing the best options to defend/counter. CnG never looked at from the aggressor/offensive, that was all TOP.
[/quote]

Not at all. I cant argue with any of the actions that C&G may or may not have taken.

The agressor in this war was the NpO, or could be argued \m/. TOP and co were defending allies, and defending them by launching a pre-emptive strike. Is that so hard to fathom?

[mitchh]

[quote name='Gn0xious Jr' date='18 February 2010 - 06:12 PM' timestamp='1266538367' post='2190607']
Definition of "near future" would be IF CnG's direct allies were attacked. IF that happened, CnG was prepared to enter in defense of her allies.

[...]

The "you were gonna be" arguments are based on IFs
[/quote]

1. Fark declares war on NSO
2. IRON declares war on Fark, and therefore SF
3. RoK activates treaty with Vanguard, and therefore CnG

Hopefully this clears up idea that CnG were such a long way away from joining the conflict.

Edited February 19, 2010 by mitchh

[Ivan Moldavi]

I believe you meant Fark.

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='Gn0xious Jr' date='18 February 2010 - 04:01 PM' timestamp='1266530519' post='2190313']
PEA looked at the treaties, saw that regardless of HOW they entered the NpO-\m/ conflict that CnG would be bound by treaties to defend and counter. Rather than follow this path, out of fear/paranoia that the road would lead here eventually, they decided to just go balls out and attack CnG who was not involved in the conflict. The real pisser, is that PEA thought they had a slam dunk - closed case victory on their hands, and ended up biting of more than they could chew. There is NO WAY that CnG would have DoW'd on anyone without a valid reason. TOP organized the PEA front as an "indirect" support to NpO, though the main purpose was to defeat CnG.
[/quote]

so if it were inevitable that CnG would be involved through treaties, what's the big deal? PEA(i like that better than tittie something) tried making things a whole lot easier by hitting them early on. obviously the sudden \m/-Polar white peace didnt help much and TOP was left out to dry(the war should have ended altogether right there but it didnt). now, we just have one huge war of misunderstanding.

[quote name='Tulafaras' date='18 February 2010 - 12:08 PM' timestamp='1266516503' post='2189899']
That is the point i still don't understand. IRON had a perfectly serviceable way into this war, to back up a direct ally who was undoubtly under attack. If they had done so, the war would have stopped a week ago, with something close to white peace all around most likely.

The escalation from that point on might have included CnG, but frankly that isn't certain. It might have simply included all of SF and some close allies (FOK, VE ) e.g. or it might have brought in CnG who knows. But regardless if CnG had countered on IRON, TOP would still have been free to counter with the deployment advantadge at that point.

So why they choose to attack in such a strange way is honestly beyond me...

(note we were expecting the IRON counter within a single day of our attack, that was why a significant amount of our strength was in peacemode so we could join our allies in counterattacking).
[/quote]

ok, like i said before, it was expected and you state that a significant amount of strength was in peacemode so obviously you were a lot more prepared than many CnGers are trying to make it out to be.


[quote name='Tomcat' date='18 February 2010 - 04:58 PM' timestamp='1266533924' post='2190442']
TOP and IRON didn't know about the peace talks that had been going on for an entire week straight because TOP and IRON didn't care about the peace talks. They just wanted an opportunity to attack CnG.

Was it PEA's obligation to inform CnG that they were going to attack them? I think we can all agree here that they had no obligation to give them advanced warning of the attack.

So, if the PEA had no obligation to warn CnG of the attack, then why would CnG have any obligation to warn them about the attack being a bad decision?

You didn't warn them about the upcoming war, so why would they warn you about the upcoming peace?
[/quote]

and CnG dont have any terms what-so-ever to offer TOP(peron stated that they [b]probably[/b] wouldnt accept anything other than white peace. you guys are trying to spin it as they dont want white peace at all), so they obviously dont care about bringing an end to the conflict.

upcoming war? it wasnt an upcoming war, this is still the same war. and that peace couldnt ended this entire charlie foxtrot.

[mitchh]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='18 February 2010 - 06:44 PM' timestamp='1266540273' post='2190688']
I believe you meant Fark.
[/quote]
Woops. Too many acronyms, thanks.

[StevieG]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='19 February 2010 - 12:28 PM' timestamp='1266539284' post='2190642']
you can explain all you want, it does not make it true. by the very wording to TOP, the main reason is not the first reason. so you can say whatever you want but TOP stated differently. also, regardless of whether it was Crymson's personal feelings, it got signed off by all of TOP Gov, not just Crymson, so it became the personal feelings of TOP not just Crymson.

all you points weigh next to nothing when compared to what TOP actually stated in their DoW so the conclusion can not logically be what you state in any way shape or form.
[/quote]

Ok, I will go along with your train of thought. Everything Crymson stated represented TOP as a whole. Much, meaning "a great amount" of their decision was based on their desire to defeat those that they think want to defeat them. My point still stands that the biggest reason is not this reason.

And I havent even got onto the point of TOP being one of many alliances on our coalition. Or the fact that "a greater" amount of their decision could be based on other more pertinent and current issues.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 06:52 PM' timestamp='1266540755' post='2190714']
Ok, I will go along with your train of thought. Everything Crymson stated represented TOP as a whole. Much, meaning "a great amount" of their decision was based on their desire to defeat those that they think want to defeat them. My point still stands that the biggest reason is not this reason.

And I havent even got onto the point of TOP being one of many alliances on our coalition. Or the fact that "a greater" amount of their decision could be based on other more pertinent and current issues.
[/quote]

there are only 2 reasons given. thus, if one is the biggest reason, that makes it the main. this means that you are still wrong in considering the first reason given is the main reason. so no matter how you attempt to spin it you are flat out wrong.

not to mention, this debate has been about TOP's reasoning for entering, not the rest of your coalition, so in regards to this debate the rest of the coalition matters little.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Dochartaigh

[Gn0xious Jr]

[quote name='mitchh' date='18 February 2010 - 04:40 PM' timestamp='1266540055' post='2190674']
1. Fark declares war on NSO
2. IRON declares war on Fark, and therefore SF
3. RoK activates treaty with Vanguard, and therefore CnG

Hopefully this clears up idea that CnG were such a long way away from joining the conflict.
[/quote]

Is this what happened? Or is this a what if? It makes sense, for sure, but I was under the impression that IRON just DoW'd with TOP against CnG...
It was never implied that CnG was such a long way from joining the conflict, however, the fact remains, they were brought in SOLELY because of the PEA. coulda woulda shoulda means !@#$, unless you are learning from the mistake for future use. Can you honestly say that actions PEA took were in their best interest? In retrospect to what has occurred?

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='18 February 2010 - 04:45 PM' timestamp='1266540339' post='2190691']
so if it were inevitable that CnG would be involved through treaties, what's the big deal? PEA(i like that better than tittie something) tried making things a whole lot easier by hitting them early on. obviously the sudden \m/-Polar white peace didnt help much and TOP was left out to dry(the war should have ended altogether right there but it didnt). now, we just have one huge war of misunderstanding.
[/quote]
I guess what I'm trying to clear up, is that rather than activate defensive treaties of their own, and wait for CnG to counter... PEA made an aggressive move "in defense" of NpO by preemptively hitting CnG. I don't agree with the stances that paint PEA as the victim, based solely on "even if." PEA chose the path to attack, not the other way around.

edit: for clarification, i also agree that this a huge cluster $%&@ of a war

Edited February 19, 2010 by Gn0xious Jr

[Denial]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 10:00 PM' timestamp='1266496247' post='2189548']
That's exactly what I said – C&G heard about the pre-emptive attack and pressured the other fronts to peace out to trap TOP/IRON into a war that they did not want. (The war they wanted was one in which the Polar coalition won.) Thanks for agreeing with me (apart from the 'sworn enemies' bit which is hyperbole).[/quote]
Complaints & Grievances had been working towards peace between \m/ and the New Polar Order since before that war even initiated. We never wanted to be in a position where our allies were split on each side. Any Polar, \m/ or Ragnarok government member can attest to the fact that countless C&G government members were assiduously working towards securing peace for [i]all[/i] parties. As much as I would like our bloc to receive credit for being able to orchestrate some great trap to set up IRON & TOP (I wonder if you have any clue how silly you sound claiming this), the fact of the matter is that it simply did not occur that way (you do realise you are attempting to spread a ludicrous conspiracy theory that was discredited even by the most virulent opponents of C&G in the opening days of this conflict, right?). We had no idea that the fifth or so set of peace talks between \m/ and Polar would actually reach fruition on the same day that TOP & IRON aggressively attacked us. Nor did we see any reason to inform those alliances that were planning to attack us without reason or a legal entry into the conflict that \m/ and Polar were in the midst of yet [i]another[/i] set of peace talks, particularly when we were under the impression that they would fail once again. The onus was upon TOP and IRON to stay informed about the activities of a coalition that they claimed to have been part of, as well as Polar to keep their supposed war-time allies informed.

I really cannot believe that anyone is attempting to claim that, upon hearing we were going to be aggressively attacked by a large collection of alliances for absolutely no reason, we are meant to bend over backwards to convince them not to attack us. That is the most cowardly thing I have seen outside of the surrender thread during the entirety of this war. Any self-respecting alliance or bloc would welcome the fools and their wanton belligerence; how dare they have the audacity to attack us without reason or provocation, to act upon pettiness and paranoia in a flagrant disregard Cyberverse norms.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 10:00 PM' timestamp='1266496247' post='2189548']
There is a clear CB in TOP's DoW. You may not agree with it or think that it was sufficient reason for war, but saying that there isn't one is outright false. The CB is 'You were about to counter-attack us anyway so we're taking the deployment advantage and hitting you first'.[/quote]
If you consider 'We declared because of what we perceived as open hostility (but we won't call it teasing) and because we thought you would eventually come for us (but we're not paranoid). And the almost-war between TPF/Athens. Oh, and Electron Sponge.' a clear and valid [i]casus belli[/i], I have no idea why you spent so much time criticising the New Pacific Order and other Hegemony members during their reign. At least Pacifica bothered taking the time to fabricate some ludicrous espionage or surrdender term violation claims.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 10:00 PM' timestamp='1266496247' post='2189548']
Seerow, just because I'm opposing you doesn't mean you have to go for character assassination. C&G are not angels in this front and your side's attempt to railroad anyone who dares to dissent is rather disappointing for a bloc which suffered 'media oppression' for so long.[/quote]
Amusing to see you playing the victim after the 'character assassination' you yourself have participated in over these recent discussions. Get some thicker skin.


[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 10:27 PM' timestamp='1266497872' post='2189569']
There is no danger of you being a superior in that or pretty much any other arena but I recognise bashing my head against a brick wall.
[/quote]
What exactly have you achieved besides becoming the laughing stock of the Cyberverse and providing the IRON propaganda department with material for the next few months? Just when I thought they could not surpass the genius of the "meatshiled" imagery, here you come to save the day with your conspiracy theories.

[quote name='Nizzle' date='19 February 2010 - 01:25 AM' timestamp='1266508547' post='2189701']
I think the recommendation is that instead of getting excited at the opportunity to stomp TOP/IRON he could have informed them "Hey, I hear you are going to attack us. FYI, peace is about to be declared."

Then again, you don't stop your enemy when he is making a mistake...but, TOP/IRON weren't CnG's enemy right? Cause, if they were prior to the DoW...wouldn't that mean...no way.
[/quote]
As I said to Bob Janova above, I really cannot believe that anyone is attempting to claim that, upon hearing we were going to be aggressively attacked by a large collection of alliances for absolutely no reason, we are meant to bend over backwards to convince them not to attack us. That is the most cowardly thing I have seen outside of the surrender thread during the entirety of this war. Any self-respecting alliance or bloc would welcome the fools and their wanton belligerence; how dare they have the audacity to attack us without reason or provocation, to act upon pettiness and paranoia in a flagrant disregard Cyberverse norms.

[mitchh]

[quote name='Gn0xious Jr' date='18 February 2010 - 07:47 PM' timestamp='1266544075' post='2190871']
Is this what happened? Or is this a what if? It makes sense, for sure, but I was under the impression that IRON just DoW'd with TOP against CnG...
It was never implied that CnG was such a long way from joining the conflict, however, the fact remains, they were brought in SOLELY because of the PEA. coulda woulda shoulda means !@#$, unless you are learning from the mistake for future use. Can you honestly say that actions PEA took were in their best interest? In retrospect to what has occurred?
[/quote]
You are correct. The point is that they were going to become involved unless they acted out of character. I wasn't involved in planning the various scenarios and how they would have panned out, so I can't comment on that.

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='Gn0xious Jr' date='18 February 2010 - 07:47 PM' timestamp='1266544075' post='2190871']I guess what I'm trying to clear up, is that rather than activate defensive treaties of their own, and wait for CnG to counter... PEA made an aggressive move "in defense" of NpO by preemptively hitting CnG. I don't agree with the stances that paint PEA as the victim, based solely on "even if." PEA chose the path to attack, not the other way around.

edit: for clarification, i also agree that this a huge cluster $%&@ of a war
[/quote]

i agree that PEA isn't the victim. but i guess i also cant agree with CnG being the victim either if they would have ended up in the war. now if TOP declared on NPO because of the \m/-Polar war, then i could definately understand NPO being the victim, lol.