Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[shilo]

[quote name='neneko' date='06 March 2010 - 02:55 PM' timestamp='1267883993' post='2215865']

We're taking indie surrenders. Feel like leaving?
[/quote]
Just out of mere curiosity, can everyone get peace via individual surrender terms, and does individual surrender to one alliance mean permanent peace with every alliance that nation is/was at war, for the duration of the conflict and afterwards?

[OsRavan]

Not to mention you are only in war because you turned down terms.

It's your right to turn down terms and keep eating nukes. Not arguing that. However, you were offered payable reps that were something like 30 percent of your tech at the time. Again, no one is saying you have to agree to them. You chose not to. But you WERE offered a choice and a choice that, when finished, would have left top (as an example) as one of if not the most powerful alliances on Bob.

So no, you are hardly "being kept in perma war." And no, I also don't think you will get off with a slap on the wrist and a wag of the finger. And yes, we have the will to keep fighting if needed. But if you are ever serious about surrendering, there are payable doable terms waiting for you. And as someone pointed out, yes you can surrender individually if you so wish. We have, in fact, been accepting individual surrenders since the first week of the war.

[shilo]

[quote name='OsRavan' date='06 March 2010 - 03:12 PM' timestamp='1267885019' post='2215876']
Not to mention you are only in war because you turned down terms.

It's your right to turn down terms and keep eating nukes. Not arguing that. However, you were offered payable reps that were something like 30 percent of your tech at the time. Again, no one is saying you have to agree to them. You chose not to. But you WERE offered a choice and a choice that, when finished, would have left top (as an example) as one of if not the most powerful alliances on Bob.

So no, you are hardly "being kept in perma war." And no, I also don't think you will get off with a slap on the wrist and a wag of the finger. And yes, we have the will to keep fighting if needed. But if you are ever serious about surrendering, there are payable doable terms waiting for you. And as someone pointed out, yes you can surrender individually if you so wish. We have, in fact, been accepting individual surrenders since the first week of the war.
[/quote]
I guess that statement of no longer being the underdog really must have hit a nerve

[OsRavan]

Ehr no... I was replying to the statement that we were trying to keep you in perma war. As you could tell since my entire post was about what a ridiculous accusation that was. I don't think the word "under-dog" has previously been typed in any post i've ever made. Personally, I don't really care about who is or isnt an under-dog. It's not something i've ever given much thought to. I find it odd that I am having a debate about "perma war" and for some reason you start talking about under-dogs?

I don't know about you, but personally I'm much more concerned about who started the war and why. And also who is winning the war. And the terms offered That's just me though.

(edited for clarity)

Edited March 6, 2010 by OsRavan

[shilo]

[quote name='OsRavan' date='06 March 2010 - 03:23 PM' timestamp='1267885682' post='2215884']
Ehr no... I was replying to the statement that we were trying to keep you in perma war. As you could tell since my entire post was about what a ridiculous accusation that was. I don't think the word "under-dog" has previously been typed in any post i've ever made. Personally, I don't really care about who is or isnt an under-dog. It's not something i've ever given much thought to. I find it odd that I am having a debate about "perma war" and for some reason you start talking about under-dogs?

I don't know about you, but personally I'm much more concerned about who started the war and why. And also who is winning the war. And the terms offered That's just me though.

(edited for clarity)
[/quote]
Well, then let's talk about peace then

Can peace be achieved for everyone, or will you chose which individual of an alliance is part of the alliance terms or not

[OsRavan]

Can you admit that your actions were wrong (as in morally wrong, not a "mistake" you made in adding up numbers) and pay/meet the serious (but *not* crippling despite the propaganda thrown around) terms that were offered to you?

[shilo]

[quote name='OsRavan' date='06 March 2010 - 03:35 PM' timestamp='1267886395' post='2215890']
Can you admit that your actions were wrong (as in morally wrong, not a "mistake" you made in adding up numbers) and pay/meet the serious (but *not* crippling despite the propaganda thrown around) terms that were offered to you?
[/quote]
The first part has long since been proposed by us, so I don't really see why that requires discussion, and the latter is currently being discussed between the parties. The one thing I mostly care about is that a peace is a peace for everyone, not except the ones you don't like. There cannot be peace between alliances when you select certain members that don't get it.

[neneko]

[quote name='shilo' date='06 March 2010 - 03:09 PM' timestamp='1267884874' post='2215872']
Just out of mere curiosity, can everyone get peace via individual surrender terms, and does individual surrender to one alliance mean permanent peace with every alliance that nation is/was at war, for the duration of the conflict and afterwards?
[/quote]
Nations accepting individual surrender terms will have peace for the duration of the conflict as long as they follow the terms of the individual surrender. Afterwards we have no reason to attack any nations that accepted individual surrenders so unless they attack us the peace will remain after the conflict.

edit: As for the question about who can take the indie terms you'll have to ask a gov official about that. Just a guess would be that there are some special cases where it wouldn't be granted such as high gov but as I said that's just a guess I don't know our policy there.

Edited March 6, 2010 by neneko

[shilo]

[quote name='neneko' date='06 March 2010 - 03:40 PM' timestamp='1267886702' post='2215894']
Nations accepting individual surrender terms will have peace for the duration of the conflict as long as they follow the terms of the individual surrender. Afterwards we have no reason to attack any nations that accepted individual surrenders so unless they attack us the peace will remain after the conflict.
[/quote]
I'll keep that in mind, thank you

[John Michaels]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='06 March 2010 - 08:30 AM' timestamp='1267882539' post='2215852']
MK might have plenty of members 'prepared for months of war', but I doubt that they are prepared to do that in the hegemonic oppressor role. It's much easier to get people to take nukes for the cause when you're fighting for your survival, which I imagine is why certain C&Gers are desperately trying to paint that picture in this case.
[/quote]
You really don't know anything about MK, do you? We believe we were aggressively attacked (I know you don't believe this, but we do and that's the crux of the argument so don't start with me on this) and we will fight for months to ensure the perpetrators get what we feel is their just desserts. There are alliances that will likely feel some degree of war weariness but ours is not one of them.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='John Michaels' date='06 March 2010 - 09:54 AM' timestamp='1267887527' post='2215902']
You really don't know anything about MK, do you? We believe we were aggressively attacked (I know you don't believe this, but we do and that's the crux of the argument so don't start with me on this) and we will fight for months to ensure the perpetrators get what we feel is their just desserts. There are alliances that will likely feel some degree of war weariness but ours is not one of them.
[/quote]
See, Bob?

They've bought the story, and now they're going to meatshield for Fark.

[Vilien]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='06 March 2010 - 10:02 AM' timestamp='1267888010' post='2215910']
See, Bob?

They've bought the story, and now they're going to meatshield for Fark.
[/quote]
I wasn't aware that we'd entered a bizarro world where being "preemptively" attacked means that you're the aggressor in a conflict.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Vilien' date='06 March 2010 - 10:05 AM' timestamp='1267888228' post='2215916']
I wasn't aware that we'd entered a bizarro world where being "preemptively" attacked means that you're the aggressor in a conflict.
[/quote]
Fark, the only alliance mentioned directly in the post I quoted, wasn't preemptively attacked. Also I didn't say anyone was being an aggressor.

I said that C&G are meatshielding for Fark. This is obvious, if you look at who's getting nuked and who's not, it's pretty much in line with who Fark wanted to see getting nuked in the rather famous leaked logs of a few months back.

[neneko]

Wait I thought we were the ones that "used alliances as meatshields". Is fark the big bad ones now? Because frankly I'm insulted. Sure fark got their crippling beer reviews but we're holding top hostage for a kazillion tech ransom that has to count for something as far as hegemonic oppressors go.

[Bob Janova]

You were aggressively attacked, yes. That doesn't change the fact that at this point you are beating down two alliances from which peace has been available for over a month (and from which you have been offered 100,000 tech according to CSM), for no reason other than the political ambitions of your leadership.

I don't buy that 'meatshielding for Fark' though, lol. It's more meatshielding for a misplaced sense of vengeance and poor forward strategic planning by C&G leadership at this stage.

[mhawk]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='06 March 2010 - 07:32 AM' timestamp='1267889841' post='2215937']

I don't buy that 'meatshielding for Fark' though, lol. It's more meatshielding for a misplaced sense of vengeance
[/quote]
The sith have won.

[neneko]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='06 March 2010 - 04:32 PM' timestamp='1267889841' post='2215937']
It's more meatshielding for a misplaced sense of vengeance and poor forward strategic planning by C&G leadership at this stage.
[/quote]
Wait a minute. You're defending TOP here and are calling out the CnG leaders on poor strategic planning?

[Haflinger]

[quote name='neneko' date='06 March 2010 - 10:37 AM' timestamp='1267890127' post='2215945']
Wait a minute. You're defending TOP here and are calling out the CnG leaders on poor strategic planning?
[/quote]
You're misreading both Bob and I. What TOP did was Grade A stupid, but that doesn't mean C&G are geniuses either.

[Bob Janova]

[quote name='neneko' date='06 March 2010 - 03:37 PM' timestamp='1267890127' post='2215945']
Wait a minute. You're defending TOP here and are calling out the CnG leaders on poor strategic planning?
[/quote]
I've never defended TOP's entrance to the war or their strategic planning. That was, as you imply, poor (that's rather an understatement). That call out is a month old at this point though, whereas C&G are still making it.

[Rocky Horror]

We have entered the Twilight Zone.

[Put your fursuit down nene, not that Twilight]

We are meatshielding for Fark, and the gracious offer of 100k tech out of 1.2million is far too generous for the likes of us

[neneko]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='06 March 2010 - 04:43 PM' timestamp='1267890479' post='2215954']
I've never defended TOP's entrance to the war or their strategic planning. That was, as you imply, poor (that's rather an understatement). That call out is a month old at this point though, whereas C&G are still making it.
[/quote]
Yes I've seen their offer they made (not a month ago mind you but a day or two ago the month old peace offer was white peace). Their current offer have TOP paying a little over 7k tech on average to each CnG alliance. An offer that's laughable at best. If it was up to me they'd pay back all the tech they destroyed by their opportunistic attack wich is currently more than the last set of reps we offered them to pay. If they don't want to pay for the damage they did when failing to destroy us they can stay at war for all I care. They're not fighting against hegemonic oppression here, they're fighting a aggressive war (or front if you want to call it that) that they started.

[MagicalTrevor]

Suddenly i see, we clearly are meatshielding FARK! Let me be the first to applaud FARK for their superb political manuvering.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='06 March 2010 - 10:02 AM' timestamp='1267888010' post='2215910']
See, Bob?

They've bought the story, and now they're going to meatshield for Fark.
[/quote]
What is this I don't even

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='OsRavan' date='06 March 2010 - 08:35 AM' timestamp='1267886395' post='2215890']
Can you admit that your actions were wrong (as in morally wrong, not a "mistake" you made in adding up numbers) and pay/meet the serious (but *not* crippling despite the propaganda thrown around) terms that were offered to you?
[/quote]

so wait, CnG !@#$%*es, whines, moans, and complains about Polaris attempting to uphold community standards, and now we have CnG trying to tell someone they were "morally" wrong in something? so now CnG is attempting to uphold community standards or something? heh. cuz i have heard this "TOP was wrong blah blah blah" bs long enough. tis awesome to watch CnG grow even more hypocritical than ever.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[quote name='neneko' date='06 March 2010 - 10:54 AM' timestamp='1267891134' post='2215975']
If it was up to me they'd pay back all the tech they destroyed by their opportunistic attack wich is currently more than the last set of reps we offered them to pay. If they don't want to pay for the damage they did when failing to destroy us they can stay at war for all I care. They're not fighting against hegemonic oppression here, they're fighting a aggressive war (or front if you want to call it that) that they started.
[/quote]
Will you hold yourself to the same standards should your alliance or a member of your bloc decides to go on opportunistic attacks? I don't recall the Knights of Ni! being offered a billion in reparations and about 3000 tech but maybe that's just me.

As far as the Fark "theory" goes, I had a good laugh.

Edit: Also, the general dislike for preemptive strike is a community standard, just like the opposition to mass tech raiding. I guess the morale here is that, if you want to get more support, you should just stick to preemptive strikes on poor isolated alliances.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Yevgeni Luchenkov