Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='21 February 2010 - 01:46 PM' timestamp='1266781588' post='2195338']
again, i know this already. the fact remains that regardless of the outcome, it still left IRON's ally NSO gaining very little relief in its fight (which is supposedly why IRON entered). Polaris hit GOD sure but then got hit by numerous other alliances as well. at least if IRON went in against FARK, NSO could have gained a brief respite and some breathing room on that front.

also, i am in IAA not CnG.
[/quote]

honestly i cant answer that. i'm not the one making decisions for IRON. as i'm sure you've noticed, i'm TORN, not IRON. if you ask me personally, i would've gone with the more conservative approach and not go balls out pre-empting. but that's just me.

[Bob Janova]

Tulafaras, I am not justifying the pre-emptive attack, but pointing out that C&G's moralising about how terrible and unprovoked TOP and IRON's attack on them was is simply propaganda since they knew the attack was coming, had a simple way to avoid it and chose not to do so. Whether TOP and IRON were doing the right thing (they weren't) is irrelevant to that point.

[quote]I also agree this war has been fun but it has gotten to a point where it is nothing but stupid and a complete waste of time[/quote]
This particular war has been like that since FOK decided to escalate it, at least, and probably since Polar decided to start it. Everyone should just pack up and go home.

Der_ko, it must be nice to be able to use that line, and spread as much directed hate as you like without it being 'representative' (whereas of course if members of other power clusters do it it is taken as being so). But in this case, Archon himself has stated that you knew of the impending attack and chose not to avoid the war. Of course he doesn't actually [i]say[/i] he wanted the chance to roll TOP and IRON but the actions clearly indicate that.

[quote]i could have sworn they were noncombatants ...[/quote]
true
[quote]... just like TPF was[/quote]
false

Being a part of a coalition that has not yet engaged is not the same as there being no war on.

As for how much help it has been to NSO, that was a strategic decision, and presumably one that NSO were at least consulted on.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='D34th' date='21 February 2010 - 12:27 PM' timestamp='1266776862' post='2195213']
I would love to see the logs of Grub encouraging the strike against CnG please and saying that would be ideal.
[/quote]
Here ya go!:

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80162

And if you are too lazy to click on the link:

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

[der_ko]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='21 February 2010 - 08:56 PM' timestamp='1266782193' post='2195355']Der_ko, it must be nice to be able to use that line, and spread as much directed hate as you like without it being 'representative' (whereas of course if members of other power clusters do it it is taken as being so).
[/quote]Yes it is, don't you agree? Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe you are expressing the official stance of VE in this war. Do you see us giving VE a hard time because you are spreading your "hate" for us all over the OWF?

[Bob Janova]

No, I'm not. If all the VE posters were taking the same angle, though, that would reflect on us, whether it was 'official' or not.

I have no hate for MK, by the way. I am saddened that two great alliances are shooting bits out of each other over, basically, nothing (over a dispute which was already solved).

[tobbogon]

[quote name='der_ko' date='21 February 2010 - 03:24 PM' timestamp='1266783866' post='2195387']
you are spreading your "hate" for us all over the OWF?
[/quote]
OF course bob is spreading hate, what else would he do if it weren't for the OWF?

[Jack Diorno]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 February 2010 - 06:34 AM' timestamp='1266784452' post='2195404']
No, I'm not. If all the VE posters were taking the same angle, though, that would reflect on us, whether it was 'official' or not.

I have no hate for MK, by the way. I am saddened that two great alliances are shooting bits out of each other over, basically, nothing (over a dispute which was already solved).
[/quote]

Ahhh, did you read the DoW from TOP?

[quote]To our opponents: We agree with the New Polar Order's reasons for war against \m/, and we consider ourselves part of that particular side of the war. For our part, however, much our reason 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.[/quote]

That is a pretty good reason for C&G to continue defending themselves.

[Nizzle]

[quote name='Jack Diorno' date='21 February 2010 - 01:38 PM' timestamp='1266784712' post='2195408']
Ahhh, did you read the DoW from TOP?



That is a pretty good reason for C&G to continue defending themselves.
[/quote]

It's just a shame C&G doesn't love peace and wanted to slug it out with TOP.

[Jack Diorno]

[quote name='Nizzle' date='22 February 2010 - 07:17 AM' timestamp='1266787023' post='2195447']
It's just a shame C&G doesn't love peace and wanted to slug it out with TOP.
[/quote]

It is.

Bob Janova I tell you what, I have a lot of say in C&G, some might tell you that I have Archon's ear and they would be right.
You convince TOP and IRON to get rid of everything military related from their nations forever, except of course some troops to keep those citizens happy, and convince them to stop tech dealing forever.
That way C&G will know that TOP and IRON are not a threat and do not want war they just want to build their nations.
You do this, and I'll try to convince archon to give you guys white peace.

ofcourse, if TOP and IRON do not agree with this, they are obviously still trying to kill C&G, what other use would they have for nuclear weapons and WRC's?
They will probably say "no, we cannot do this as C&G will attack us" which leads me to think they are still just as paranoid and crazy and will jump C&G the next time they have a chance to weaken someone who they believe is out to get them (yet as never made any aggressive moves against them strangely enough).

Seriously, go and start convincing them!
I want to hear their answers on the matter.

[TBRaiders]

[quote name='Nizzle' date='21 February 2010 - 03:17 PM' timestamp='1266787023' post='2195447']
It's just a shame C&G doesn't love peace and wanted to slug it out with TOP.
[/quote]

It's a shame you cannot be consistant on your opinion of this war being fought. I do think if TOP wants to surrender and offer reps for their aggressive attack our leaders would be willing to negotiate. Don't act like C&G is the only ones holding up world peace.


[quote name='Nizzle' date='28 January 2010 - 10:58 PM' timestamp='1264741114' post='2138851']
This makes me happy in my pants.

Good job TOP. Marching into the void. Now look at them all bawwing. I thought this is what you wanted?

(Exception to most of MK, who are welcoming this.)
[/quote]

[quote name='Nizzle' date='28 January 2010 - 11:10 PM' timestamp='1264741820' post='2139017']
Oh, the difference from the TPF war. Now no one wants TOP to play?

You know, had they declared on one member of CnG, they would have had effectively declared on all of them anyway. Right?
[/quote]

[TBRaiders]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='21 February 2010 - 02:34 PM' timestamp='1266784452' post='2195404']
No, I'm not. If all the VE posters were taking the same angle, though, that would reflect on us, whether it was 'official' or not.

I have no hate for MK, by the way. I am saddened that two great alliances are shooting bits out of each other over, basically, nothing (over a dispute which was already solved).
[/quote]

I just want to know who's fault it would be if TOP and company had declared on VE as their pre-emptive attack and this war was still going on. Or are you telling me that every front would have been white peaced already?

NSO won't leave without IRON who won't leave without TOP who won't leave without everyone else and no terms other than white peace...

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='Jack Diorno' date='21 February 2010 - 03:22 PM' timestamp='1266787378' post='2195455']
It is.

Bob Janova I tell you what, I have a lot of say in C&G, some might tell you that I have Archon's ear and they would be right.
You convince TOP and IRON to get rid of everything military related from their nations forever, except of course some troops to keep those citizens happy, and convince them to stop tech dealing forever.
That way C&G will know that TOP and IRON are not a threat and do not want war they just want to build their nations.
You do this, and I'll try to convince archon to give you guys white peace.

ofcourse, if TOP and IRON do not agree with this, they are obviously still trying to kill C&G, what other use would they have for nuclear weapons and WRC's?
They will probably say "no, we cannot do this as C&G will attack us" which leads me to think they are still just as paranoid and crazy and will jump C&G the next time they have a chance to weaken someone who they believe is out to get them (yet as never made any aggressive moves against them strangely enough).
[/quote]

get rid of everything military and stop tech dealing? that's funny. but what you say would make CnG just as "paranoid" as TOP/IRON.

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='TBRaiders' date='21 February 2010 - 03:28 PM' timestamp='1266787684' post='2195462']
NSO won't leave without IRON who won't leave without TOP who won't leave without everyone else and [b]no terms other than white peace[/b]...
[/quote]

false. they said that they threw that out there to get a counter-offer from CnG.

[TBRaiders]

[quote name='HHAYD' date='21 February 2010 - 01:58 PM' timestamp='1266782326' post='2195357']
Here ya go!:

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80162

And if you are too lazy to click on the link:
[/quote]

Just curious if you realize that conversation was after the fact? I'm guessing about an hour before that thread was posted. I'm not saying that Polar wasn't coordinated with prior to the attack. Just like TOP going to MHA and asking who could hit their ally Fark without a counter. Nothing like trying to manipulate alliance behind closed doors to find the safest or at least the most opportunistic avenue into a war. Next time, just try honoring treaties or defending friends and see where the chips fall out instead of trying to manipulate the situation to favor you.

[TBRaiders]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='21 February 2010 - 03:31 PM' timestamp='1266787894' post='2195472']
false. they said that they threw that out there to get a counter-offer from CnG.
[/quote]

I didn't see that, so good to know. I do think rather than starting at zero and working this out like used car salesmen they could come with a surrender offer that isn't a slap in the face.

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='TBRaiders' date='21 February 2010 - 03:35 PM' timestamp='1266788126' post='2195478']
I didn't see that, so good to know. I do think rather than starting at zero and working this out like used car salesmen they could come with a surrender offer that isn't a slap in the face.
[/quote]

i can understand why you would feel that way. but at least it is something. how long it'll take for leaders on both sides to say it needs to stop, who knows.

[Tulafaras]

[quote name='Sir Keshav IV' date='21 February 2010 - 07:32 PM' timestamp='1266777127' post='2195220']
That quote works both ways mate. At least try arguing without starting the first line with an insult. D:


[/quote]

i was referring to a specific part of his post, i probably should have made that clear.
His line was Athens & GOD jumped TPF, which is true to a limited extent, but is rather biased considering that GOD's role in that war was simply to back up our MADP partner Rok. We didn't declare the initial war, we just followed our treaty. Something which was hailed by Bob for the alliances who did it to back up TOP/IRON in this war.

Besides, i must admit i do not consider bias an insult, frankly it's logical to some extent that we are biased, every single one of us is a member of an alliance and likes some people more than others, but Bob is letting his bias overtake his reason in this war.

Personally when i heard the rumours that TOP/IRON would enter the war my first reaction was to draw up a targetlist for IRON since we had on purpose kept a large amount of strength in peace up to that point to react to their inevitable counterattack. When the first rumours that their target might be MK (not even CnG as a whole but MK) reached our IRC channels our collective reaction was something along the lines of: "they can't be that stupid, that rumour is almost certainly false".

I imagine the situation was similar in the MK channels, there was a rumour about alliance X entering against alliance Y almost every single night and most of them proved false. The TOP/IRON rumours proved true in the end, but it doesn't change the fact that most alliances had a hard time believing them. So his position that MK should have averted the war (which newsflash they actually tried to do by speeding up the peace negotiations....) seems absurd to me.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]His line was Athens & GOD jumped TPF, which is true to a limited extent, but is rather biased considering that GOD's role in that war was simply to back up our MADP partner Rok[/quote]
Oh, that was just a mistake, I must have remembered it wrong. I knew it was one in C&G and one in SF

[quote]I just want to know who's fault it would be if TOP and company had declared on VE as their pre-emptive attack and this war was still going on. Or are you telling me that every front would have been white peaced already?[/quote]
For declaring the war, TOP and company would be partially at fault. If VE knew about it in advance, and pushed for a peace on other fronts, and didn't inform TOP and IRON of this, then VE would also partially be at fault. If I were in charge and it happened, yes, I would have pushed for a white peace once the initial dispute was resolved.

Edit: At fault for there being a new front opened ... VE would obviously be the defensive alliance, but if we had had an easy option for avoiding it, we couldn't claim that we didn't want the war or that TOP/IRON were immoral and deserving of harsh treatment for starting it.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Bob Janova

[Ryuzaki]

I have a question for you Bob Janova.

Assuming that Archon knew the information was 100% accurate, why should he have informed TOP/IRON that peace was about to break out?

Considering that TOP/IRON had no treaty ties that would force them to attack a [b]currently[/b] (spare me the argument that C&G would have become involved please, I'm sick of hearing it) uninvolved bloc, he might have decided there were 2 possible reasons for the attack.

1. TOP/IRON had a completely seperate, legitimate CB against C&G members and informing them of the imminent peace in the Polar-\m/ conflict would have no effect on whether or not they would declare war.

2. TOP/IRON had no reason to attack C&G aside from eliminating a threat. If this was the case, then it means that TOP/IRON became a threat to the security of C&G and that the conflict became one that would inevitably happen. In this case, it would be better to allow them to enter into a scenario where treaty partners would be immediately involved and public opinion would be against TOP/IRON.

Considering the rationale stated in Archons initial address, I don't believe it is a huge leap to come to this conclusion.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Ryuzaki

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='21 February 2010 - 01:56 PM' timestamp='1266782193' post='2195355']
false

Being a part of a coalition that has not yet engaged is not the same as there being no war on.

As for how much help it has been to NSO, that was a strategic decision, and presumably one that NSO were at least consulted on.
[/quote]

for one, CnG had treaties but i could have sworn that TOP, Gremlins, and others set the precedent that you can be part of one side but not be in the same coalition (SPW/WoTC in which TOP, Gremlins and their coalition hit Polaris while stating they were not part of the coalition hitting CnG and others that were defending Hyperion. lets not forget that in that same war, TOP and friends also preemptively attacked BLEU since BLEU would be obligated to defend. so really, TOP has a lot of history with preemptive strikes on alliances they consider threats and the allies of said threats.)

so who is to actually say that CnG were part of any coalition, especially since they had not entered to help any ally who was already at war, and at least on MK's part was actively seeking peace instead of going to war.

[quote name='HHAYD' date='21 February 2010 - 01:58 PM' timestamp='1266782326' post='2195357']
Here ya go!:

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80162

And if you are too lazy to click on the link:
[/quote]

where in there is Grub particularly enthusiastic with this plan? while he condones it, it does not mean he was particularly thrilled by it. nor does it give any indication he encouraged this plan whatsoever. condoning something does not mean you have to be happy with it. Grub most likely felt that it would help his side at the time.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Ryuzaki' date='21 February 2010 - 07:08 PM' timestamp='1266797294' post='2195640']


2. TOP/IRON had no reason to attack C&G aside from eliminating a threat. If this was the case, then it means that TOP/IRON became a threat to the security of C&G and that the conflict became one that would inevitably happen. In this case, it would be better to allow them to enter into a scenario where treaty partners would be immediately involved and public opinion would be against TOP/IRON.

[/quote]

I hate this logic coming from anybody, Its the same !@#$%^&* the NPO fed us for years to justify wars, threats to their security. You know what else secures your alliance? Diplomacy. People should take the time to talk out their issues like adults instead of resorting to the nuke.

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='21 February 2010 - 06:53 PM' timestamp='1266799986' post='2195696']
I hate this logic coming from anybody, Its the same !@#$%^&* the NPO fed us for years to justify wars, threats to their security. You know what else secures your alliance? Diplomacy. People should take the time to talk out their issues like adults instead of resorting to the nuke.
[/quote]

if that were the case, this war could be over in a day or two.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='21 February 2010 - 06:53 PM' timestamp='1266799986' post='2195696']
I hate this logic coming from anybody, Its the same !@#$%^&* the NPO fed us for years to justify wars, threats to their security. You know what else secures your alliance? Diplomacy. People should take the time to talk out their issues like adults instead of resorting to the nuke.
[/quote]

while i agree with you, let us not forget which set of alliances refused to use diplomacy first to settle any issues but instead resorted to a preemptive strike. given that bit of relevance it is no wonder that diplomacy may be the furthest thing from CnG's mind since it is obvious that TOP/IRON care very little for diplomacy.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='21 February 2010 - 08:10 PM' timestamp='1266801043' post='2195724']
while i agree with you, let us not forget which set of alliances refused to use diplomacy first to settle any issues but instead resorted to a preemptive strike. given that bit of relevance it is no wonder that diplomacy may be the furthest thing from CnG's mind since it is obvious that TOP/IRON care very little for diplomacy.
[/quote]

I wasn't specifically blaming one side over the other for that behavior*, just underscoring how much I detest it. A threat to your security is never a justification, because until the shooting actually starts it should still be talking time.

Idiocy like preemptive strikes are simply self fulfilling prophesy, TOP and IRON were convinced C&G would be their downfall, so they attacked.

The sad part is, their mauling in this war will only confirm their beliefs in their minds, it'll never occur to them to think that their preemptive strike is what caused it in the first place.

*Though TOP and IRON are certainly the most recent example.

Edited February 22, 2010 by TypoNinja

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='21 February 2010 - 02:56 PM' timestamp='1266782193' post='2195355']
As for how much help it has been to NSO, that was a strategic decision, and presumably one that NSO were at least consulted on.
[/quote]
Don't presume too much.

I guess consultation could equate to being told about a plan, disagreeing with the plan and then being told that your opinion is noted but the decision has already been made and the plan that you disagree with and point out as incredibly stupid is going to be followed anyway. So yeah, I guess you [i]could[/i] say NSO was consulted.