Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[rsoxbronco1]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' date='16 February 2010 - 12:09 AM' timestamp='1266296995' post='2184684']
Suits me fine. If mutual destruction is the path you want to take, no need to beat around the bush about it trying to pretend your hands are tied.
[/quote]
Us saying no to white peace = saying our hands are tied?

The message I'm getting from this thread is that TOP attacked C&G because we had some members who didn't like you. No need to beat around the bush, right?

[Gurney Halleck]

There is a time for all things. There will be a time for peace. Obviously, that time is not now, and I think both sides are fine with the situation. Discussing this [i]ad nauseum [/i]is kind of silly at this point.

[NoFish]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' date='15 February 2010 - 11:54 PM' timestamp='1266296074' post='2184554']
[edit]"Alright, we'll call it a draw" springs to mind. Not every conflict is won or lost, sometimes it's mutually beneficial to disengage before the battle is won or lost. I wouldn't expect CnG to surrender to or admit defeat, nor do I feel it appropriate for our side to do the same, given as you rightly point out that this conflict seems destined for mutual destruction rather than an our-right victory.

[edit2]By MK I meant CnG.
[/quote]
Spoken truly like someone trying to backpedal out of a war they are losing.

[delendum]

[quote name='AAlumni' date='16 February 2010 - 05:13 AM' timestamp='1266297208' post='2184706']
There is a time for all things. There will be a time for peace. Obviously, that time is not now, and I think both sides are fine with the situation. Discussing this [i]ad nauseum [/i]is kind of silly at this point.
[/quote]

I agree with my MORTAL ENEMY on this one.

[Believland]

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='16 February 2010 - 12:07 AM' timestamp='1266296878' post='2184670']
It's a term I use for a reason*. I apologize that the speech was too long for your attention span or not humorous enough - I'll strive to be more "lulzy" in the future for you.

*OOC: I do not wish to violate the forum rules by using a certain word, so it's the best word I could come up with that would communicate the same thing...
[/quote]
As far as my attention span goes, it's not small. You're just a tad bland. Luckily this can be fixed. I believe you have a very good writer in Stumpy. When writing long speeches, it's always good to splash in some humor to keep people's attention. Look at a Vidiot_The_Great, Stumpy, or a Sir Paul topic. Plus, the fact that you had to bring up the wotc didn't help. I mean, come on man. Two years, after it's done. Time to bury that war(Note: you can bring it out if you are ever called out for not being in a curbstomp) But, that's just a Come on man

@*: It's been taken back

[SpoiL]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='15 February 2010 - 10:24 PM' timestamp='1266290693' post='2184193']
Quick Stumpy, to the bat cave!

Damn you Chron.


No, I honestly have no idea what you are saying if that wasn't it.
[/quote]

I welcome you to ask next time.

I was speaking of this hegemonic(word?) philosophy of having to hold down your opponent for extended periods of time, be it by extended war(or continued war, despite it having ended with NpO-\m/, in this case), absurd surrender terms, viceroy, etc. Those folk just might be inclined to return the favor when things are so stacked in your favor, hence 'I've seen your future. It reads...Karma.' No, I don't mean me or NSO.

[Blue Lightning]

[quote name='rsoxbronco1' date='16 February 2010 - 05:12 AM' timestamp='1266297167' post='2184703']
Us saying no to white peace = saying our hands are tied?

The message I'm getting from this thread is that TOP attacked C&G because we had some members who didn't like you. No need to beat around the bush, right?
[/quote]
I was referring to the whole "The other side is an imminent threat to our future and therefore we can't accept white peace" deal. If we're willing to agree to a white peace and a non-aggression pact (and I'm not saying we are for sure because I don't know), effectively removing us as a threat to your future, then us being a threat to you isn't the reason you wont accept white-peace.

[quote name='NoFish' date='16 February 2010 - 05:13 AM' timestamp='1266297237' post='2184709']
Spoken truly like someone trying to backpedal out of a war they are losing.
[/quote]
I'd be equally happy with peace as with perpetual war. On the one hand this war is retarded and I feel like we're fighting for the sake of fighting more so than any sense of purpose. And on the other[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVESMxs4rbA]...[/url]

[Believland]

[quote name='Denial' date='16 February 2010 - 12:11 AM' timestamp='1266297079' post='2184695']
Really? You sure seemed about to tear up over your infrastructure with all your baseless commentary surrounding TOP and IRON having to be "executed" due to building up their nations.

And sure, I'm down. Though, there's quite a disparity between our nations at the moment, given that Thurn is quite new to this world. Care to get nuked down to my level?
[/quote]
I don't think I was teary eye during this whole thing. I could care less about infra. All the cool kids knows that tech is where it's at B) Also, to my executed statement:
Really shouldn't have thrown IRON out there. You guys seem to have more of a fetish with TOP. But, it's known that you guys have been persecuting TOP on the forums since they withdrew from Karma. Excuse me for being a bit dramatic.

I could always build you up. No need for a Senior to go to a Middle School/Jr. High and start stealing lunch money.

[rsoxbronco1]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' date='16 February 2010 - 12:27 AM' timestamp='1266298064' post='2184780']
I was referring to the whole "The other side is an imminent threat to our future and therefore we can't accept white peace" deal. If we're willing to agree to a white peace and a non-aggression pact (and I'm not saying we are for sure because I don't know), effectively removing us as a threat to your future, then us being a threat to you isn't the reason you wont accept white-peace.[/quote]

You attacked our bloc. No !@#$ you're an imminent threat.

Also, I don't trust TOP so no.

You broke our unwritten Optional Non-Aggression Pact and now you must suffer the consequences.


[quote]I'd be equally happy with peace as with perpetual war. On the one hand this war is retarded and I feel like we're fighting for the sake of fighting more so than any sense of purpose. And on the other[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVESMxs4rbA]...[/url]
[/quote]
We're fighting because Crymson wanted to "bloody C&G up". We're continuing to fight because we're more than happy to return the favor once you threw the first punch.

[Cairna]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='16 February 2010 - 03:09 AM' timestamp='1266289747' post='2184127']
Quite simply Archon, if yours is a general reflection of the attitude of all of C&G, you've not nearly bled enough.

Enjoy the war. More importantly, enjoy bringing about that which C&G fears the most.
[/quote]
Bad humor?

I support this war.

[delendum]

[quote name='SpoiL' date='16 February 2010 - 05:26 AM' timestamp='1266297976' post='2184772']
I welcome you to ask next time.

I was speaking of this hegemonic(word?) philosophy of having to hold down your opponent for extended periods of time, be it by extended war(or continued war, despite it having ended with NpO-\m/, in this case), absurd surrender terms, viceroy, etc. Those folk just might be inclined to return the favor when things are so stacked in your favor, hence 'I've seen your future. It reads...Karma.' No, I don't mean me or NSO.
[/quote]

You mean how TOP preemptively declared on us the very same night the NpO-\m/ war ended, while stating that for their part, they're in it to "bloody us up"? I will give you that they didn't know Polar was going to peace that night, but if they really cared and were strictly a part of that war, they would have at least known that reaching peace was close.

They attacked us specifically because they believed things were stacked in their favor. By returning the favor, you mean they'll wait for us to declare war on them when we think the odds are against them?

Ultimately, who said anything about absurd terms and viceroy's? We stated that white peace is not something we are considering, at least not at this point in time. Those are conclusions you drew based on convenience.

[quote name='Blue Lightning' date='16 February 2010 - 05:27 AM' timestamp='1266298064' post='2184780']
I was referring to the whole "The other side is an imminent threat to our future and therefore we can't accept white peace" deal. If we're willing to agree to a white peace and a non-aggression pact (and I'm not saying we are for sure because I don't know), effectively removing us as a threat to your future, then us being a threat to you isn't the reason you wont accept white-peace.


I'd be equally happy with peace as with perpetual war. On the one hand this war is retarded and I feel like we're fighting for the sake of fighting more so than any sense of purpose. And on the other[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVESMxs4rbA]...[/url]
[/quote]

If CnG peaces out right now, we will have lost. You guys are still way above us in NS (both average and combined), you have a lot of nations who will be able to simply bounce back, while CnG will have a much harder time trying to rebuild. It would be the equivalent of us simply receiving a beating, it's just not something we can allow. That and it would be just your gentleman's word keeping you from attacking us again somewhere down the road. While I won't question your word, it's hard for us to base ourselves on just that, after having been aggressively attacked by you. The least we can do is make sure you're in at least as bad of a shape as we are when this is all over.

[Cyber Nationz]

Both sides have a point.
I would still be favor for white peace.

cause the aggressors have gotten the worse beatings then the defenders therefore white peace will help everyone.

[i]STOP, DROP and [s]Re-Roll[/s] rebuild[/i]

[watchman]

Whew. I thought you pansies were going to peace out. Thank Admin you didn't! I haven't even burned through half my warchest yet.

[delendum]

[quote name='watchman' date='16 February 2010 - 05:50 AM' timestamp='1266299446' post='2184884']
Whew. I thought you pansies were going to peace out. Thank Admin you didn't! I haven't even burned through half my warchest yet.
[/quote]

We were so close man, let me tell you. I literally had to !@#$%* slap CnG's leadership back into their senses, they were so delirious about peace and whatnot. Thankfully, harder heads and violence prevailed. You can thank me later.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='watchman' date='16 February 2010 - 12:50 AM' timestamp='1266299446' post='2184884']
Whew. I thought you pansies were going to peace out. Thank Admin you didn't! I haven't even burned through half my warchest yet.
[/quote]
You heard the man. Here's everyone's chance to know exactly how much longer to keep watchman going to ensure that peace isn't offered on a timeframe that allows him to just buy back to his pre-war state before the ink dries.

Pleeeeaaaasssse. [i]Please.[/i]

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' date='16 February 2010 - 05:27 AM' timestamp='1266298064' post='2184780']
I was referring to the whole "The other side is an imminent threat to our future and therefore we can't accept white peace" deal. If we're willing to agree to a white peace and a non-aggression pact (and I'm not saying we are for sure because I don't know), effectively removing us as a threat to your future, then us being a threat to you isn't the reason you wont accept white-peace.
[/quote]

Well aren't you a naive Nancy? White peace and non aggression, eh? I think the best way to ensure you arent a threat to our future is your alliance giving 1/2 of its tech to Boy and .05 of its tech to Aloha.

[Chickenzilla]

[quote name='watchman' date='15 February 2010 - 11:50 PM' timestamp='1266299446' post='2184884']
Whew. I thought you pansies were going to peace out. Thank Admin you didn't! I haven't even burned through half my warchest yet.
[/quote]
I can't imagine someone with a nation your size having burned through even a fourth of their warchest yet. :/

[tamerlane]

[quote name='delendum' date='16 February 2010 - 05:56 AM' timestamp='1266299807' post='2184902']
We were so close man, let me tell you. I literally had to !@#$%* slap CnG's leadership back into their senses, they were so delirious about peace and whatnot. Thankfully, harder heads and violence prevailed. You can thank me later.
[/quote]

You can thank me for nominating you for ombuttsman.

[Denial]

[quote name='Believland' date='16 February 2010 - 03:03 PM' timestamp='1266298404' post='2184810']
I don't think I was teary eye during this whole thing. I could care less about infra. All the cool kids knows that tech is where it's at B) Also, to my executed statement:
Really shouldn't have thrown IRON out there. You guys seem to have more of a fetish with TOP. [b]But, it's known that you guys have been persecuting TOP on the forums since they withdrew from Karma[/b]. Excuse me for being a bit dramatic.[/quote]
Hey, I've been persecuting TOP since well before the Karma War. Give me some credit [img]http://hallofvanguard.com/Smileys/default/colbert.gif[/img]

[quote name='Believland' date='16 February 2010 - 03:03 PM' timestamp='1266298404' post='2184810']
I could always build you up. No need for a Senior to go to a Middle School/Jr. High and start stealing lunch money.
[/quote]
Don't worry, I'm sure reparations will be included in TOP's surrender terms.

[Blue Lightning]

[quote name='rsoxbronco1' date='16 February 2010 - 05:33 AM' timestamp='1266298431' post='2184813']
You attacked our bloc. No !@#$ you're an imminent threat.

Also, I don't trust TOP so no.

You broke our unwritten Optional Non-Aggression Pact and now you must suffer the consequences.
[/quote]
Now you're just clutching at straws. If we were to make such an agreement, what possible benefit would there be to breaking it? If either of us broke said agreement, we'd never be taken seriously again. Not only would it be very unwise to do so, but to suggest that we're not one to stick to our word seems pretty off base. I think you know very well that we honour our word. I realise being honest about that now wouldn't benefit your current argument though.

[quote name='rsoxbronco1' date='16 February 2010 - 05:33 AM' timestamp='1266298431' post='2184813']
We're fighting because Crymson wanted to "bloody C&G up". We're continuing to fight because we're more than happy to return the favor once you threw the first punch.
[/quote]
If only it was so simple.

[Believland]

[quote name='Chickenzilla' date='16 February 2010 - 12:57 AM' timestamp='1266299872' post='2184906']
I can't imagine someone with a nation your size having burned through even a fourth of their warchest yet. :/
[/quote]
You would not believe how expensive navies are. Plus, they're so easily destoryed

[Believland]

[quote name='Denial' date='16 February 2010 - 12:59 AM' timestamp='1266299962' post='2184913']
Hey, I've been persecuting TOP since well before the Karma War. Give me some credit [img]http://hallofvanguard.com/Smileys/default/colbert.gif[/img]


Don't worry, I'm sure reparations will be included in TOP's surrender terms.
[/quote]
Woh now, Revanche. I thought Archon ran CnG. I never knew you were the trendsetter

I think I might be out of your range by then

[Earogema]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' date='15 February 2010 - 11:59 PM' timestamp='1266299979' post='2184914']
Now you're just clutching at straws. If we were to make such an agreement, what possible benefit would there be to breaking it?
[/quote]
You attacked C&G without a treaty allowing you to enter this war, and without concrete evidence in your CB. You preemptively struck them to catch them off guard. Now, you suggest they sign a treaty of non-aggression because there is no reason to break it?

Edited February 16, 2010 by Earogema

[Chickenzilla]

[quote name='Believland' date='16 February 2010 - 12:00 AM' timestamp='1266300015' post='2184917']
You would not believe how expensive navies are. Plus, they're so easily destoryed
[/quote]
I would actually. I used to have a large nation, and went down nuking for twenty days. I didn't blow half my warchest.

[Sir Paul]

[quote name='delendum' date='15 February 2010 - 09:56 PM' timestamp='1266299807' post='2184902']
We were so close man, let me tell you. I literally had to !@#$%* slap CnG's leadership back into their senses, they were so delirious about peace and whatnot. Thankfully, harder heads and violence prevailed. You can thank me later.
[/quote]
I remember when I used to be the dove in the Pacifican leadership. Man, what 6 years will do to you.

-Un Soldato Morto