Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[Krack]

[quote name='Stetson' date='16 February 2010 - 02:39 AM' timestamp='1266309565' post='2185284']
Was the premise of their thought process sound that [b]no matter in what manner they became involved in this war[/b] they would end up fighting C&G correct? Absolutely, and the King of the leading C&G alliance admits it right here.

So, draw what conclusions you must, the final decision was flawed, but the reasoning behind it had merit.
[/quote]

I draw the conclusion that it was dumb for TOP/IRON to become involved in the war in the first place. That option isn't accounted for in your analysis.

[skokie]

Question, what would happen if TOP/IRON would not have attacked C&G that night?

[Captain Enema]

The war wouldn't have happened.

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='skokie' date='16 February 2010 - 09:53 AM' timestamp='1266310410' post='2185296']
Question, what would happen if TOP/IRON would not have attacked C&G that night?
[/quote]

That TOP/IRON would have attacked C&G some other time. It was gonna happen one way or another, they were just looking for a good opportunity to do it.

[Style #386]

[quote name='Methrage' date='16 February 2010 - 03:24 AM' timestamp='1266308665' post='2185270']
So the war continues indefinitely, sounds fun.
[/quote]
To be fair I don't recall this having not been the case since the advent of this conflict.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='skokie' date='16 February 2010 - 03:53 AM' timestamp='1266310410' post='2185296']
Question, what would happen if TOP/IRON would not have attacked C&G that night?
[/quote]

That is close to impossible to suppose, you would need to posses knowledge of each participant and their intentions.

The war has progressed as it has so far because specific people had specific intentions and there were specific reactions, had a different action been taken there'd have been different reactions. It looked like things were winding down before the DoW so perhaps the war might have not happened (or simply been postponed) but then again, perhaps there were other reactions we'd have seen instead. TOP and IRON's DoW made it clear what their motives and intent were, perhaps the war was inevitable. We may never know.

The only thing you may be certain of now is that one side will paint the other as evil, and the other side will do the same, and it won't matter who's right, wars never decide that. We'll have many many nukes fired, and all that will be decided when the dust settles is who's left.

[Aeternos Astramora]

Yes, it was paranoia that almost made you go to war with them three times in two months over actions that TOP/IRON were on the defending side for...

[shahenshah]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' date='16 February 2010 - 09:08 AM' timestamp='1266293315' post='2184383']
But they did it for Polar!
[/quote]

Peron mentioned the attack was part of the same Polar-\m/ conflict, to support them, once it was over, our reason for conflict over with it. I must disagree with some interpretations that have been concluded by the OP, but thats understandable in context of this conflict.

That also answers your question Skokie.

Regards.

Edited February 16, 2010 by shahenshah

[Hymenbreach]

It's always funny to read about the street corner yahoos and other low personalities of CnG complaining about being picked on.

Both sides were going to war anyway sooner or later. Pleading for sympathy in the Peanut Gallery doesn't send an inspiring message of strength to anyone.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Hymenbreach

[Scorponok]

That a pretty good, honest read.

Glad to hear your side of the story. But I'm sure there are other views.

[bay102174]

I really hate to see an Alliance leader betray the trust and common respect of other leaders. Even those of whom they are at war with. You did not post the log of that convo because it would make you a liar. Then, what you did not lie about you twisted into a twizzler. (I read the log myself) Its a shame people are hailing you for such lies. I wonder if they would if they really knew. IRON will not lower itself to such tactics. Which is why, I my opinion the OWF is about the most useless place in the world.

[Earogema]

[quote name='bay102174' date='16 February 2010 - 05:04 AM' timestamp='1266318285' post='2185382']
I really hate to see an Alliance leader betray the trust and common respect of other leaders. Even those of whom they are at war with. You did not post the log of that convo because it would make you a liar. Then, what you did not lie about you twisted into a twizzler. (I read the log myself) Its a shame people are hailing you for such lies. I wonder if they would if they really knew. IRON will not lower itself to such tactics. Which is why, I my opinion the OWF is about the most useless place in the world.
[/quote]
Yeah, okay then. Has Crymson come into this thread and said as much? Peron?

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Earogema' date='16 February 2010 - 06:17 AM' timestamp='1266319055' post='2185393']
Yeah, okay then. Has Crymson come into this thread and said as much? Peron?
[/quote]
[quote name='Crymson' date='15 February 2010 - 09:56 PM' timestamp='1266288977' post='2184082']
There are some significant inaccuracies in your interpretations.
[/quote]
Significant means what he says, although log dumping on OWF is below him.

[arentak]

[quote name='skokie' date='16 February 2010 - 02:53 AM' timestamp='1266310410' post='2185296']
Question, what would happen if TOP/IRON would not have attacked C&G that night?
[/quote]
IRON wasn't going to let NSO burn. TOP wouldn't let IRON burn. Thus, we have the current war.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='16 February 2010 - 09:01 PM' timestamp='1266310901' post='2185301']
That TOP/IRON would have attacked C&G some other time. It was gonna happen one way or another, they were just looking for a good opportunity to do it.
[/quote]
No- Polar's white peace with \m/ would have ended the war.

[quote name='bay102174' date='16 February 2010 - 11:04 PM' timestamp='1266318285' post='2185382']
I really hate to see an Alliance leader betray the trust and common respect of other leaders. Even those of whom they are at war with. You did not post the log of that convo because it would make you a liar. Then, what you did not lie about you twisted into a twizzler. (I read the log myself) Its a shame people are hailing you for such lies. I wonder if they would if they really knew. IRON will not lower itself to such tactics. Which is why, I my opinion the OWF is about the most useless place in the world.
[/quote]
The OP clearly states this was his opinion. If you feel IRON has been poorly represented- then point out how. I personally agree with Archon's summary of the conversation. But if you feel strongly about it- why not counter it.

[Style #386]

[quote name='arentak' date='16 February 2010 - 06:40 AM' timestamp='1266320433' post='2185410']
IRON wasn't going to let NSO burn. TOP wouldn't let IRON burn. Thus, we have the current war.
[/quote]
With all due respect to the Sith, the current conflict has absolutely nothing to do with NSO beyond their participation in a holdover front from the NpO-\m/ conflict.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='arentak' date='16 February 2010 - 06:40 AM' timestamp='1266320433' post='2185410']
IRON wasn't going to let NSO burn. TOP wouldn't let IRON burn. Thus, we have the current war.
[/quote]
That people fail to realize this is why so many are so confused about the war, it got to this point with C&G trying to separate wars which weren't. No matter how much you argue on OWF it doesn't change for those that are fighting.

[TailsK]

Rarely do I take it upon myself to comment on world affairs, but I can't help but feel compelled to do so after reading this topic's title, OP and many of the posts herein. Perhaps rather than looking at peoples' interpretations, we should look at the facts, for a change:

[list=1]
[*]TIFDTT's declaration of war was pre-emptive, NOT aggressive. There is a difference. For those of you who fail to comprehend such differences, I invite you to read the definitions of [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pre-emptive"]pre-emptive[/url] and [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aggressive"]aggressive[/url] for yourselves. Coming to the conclusion that this was, in fact, a pre-emptive war, was easy. After speaking to people on all "sides" of the current conflict (members of C&G included), they all agree that even if there was no pre-emptive strike, we would still be in an almost identical situation had IRON declared on someone else (in defence of NSO).

[*]TIFDTT became involved in an existing war, they did not create a new one. Regardless of circumstance, NpO declared war against \m/. Had that war not existed, neither would the current one.

[*]Some claim that TOP's supposed paranoia created this war. Even paranoia has its roots. To claim innocence and pretend that peoples' attitudes and snide remarks towards TOP were not a factor in breeding such supposed paranoia fools no one but yourselves.

[*]There was a clear window of opportunity to end the war immediately after \m/ surrendered. The first wave of attacks on C&G had only just begun, damage was limited and no one had dropped a nuke. The war could have ended there and then, but rather, C&G insisted on continuing the war on the false premise that TIFDTT's actions were aggressive and not pre-emptive. To me, this does little more than prove that TOP's supposed paranoia was not unfounded and that C&G did, indeed, want a war with TOP and its allies.
[/list]

[arentak]

[quote name='Style #386' date='16 February 2010 - 05:45 AM' timestamp='1266320746' post='2185417']
With all due respect to the Sith, the current conflict has absolutely nothing to do with NSO beyond their participation in a holdover front from the NpO-\m/ conflict.
[/quote]

This has everything to do with NSO.

Any way you spin global war, IRON was on one side, Supercomplaints was on the other. Knowing that an IRON ally, NSO, was being hit, TOP's involvement was inevitable. That we chose to deploy in a manner that we "thought" would give our side the best chance for winning is irrelevant.

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='Methrage' date='16 February 2010 - 11:26 AM' timestamp='1266319572' post='2185400']
Significant means what he says, although log dumping on OWF is below him.
[/quote]

That is a dam shame then. We have Archon making his case and the other parties not only questioning his intent but calling him a flat out liar. Then we get the ridiculous commentary about not lowering oneself, this place being useless etc, yet they are here commenting.

So at this point lets get the log dump, if what the TOP and Iron people are saying is true (you know, Archon is a liar) then it should be very clear to all.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Style #386' date='16 February 2010 - 04:45 PM' timestamp='1266320746' post='2185417']
With all due respect to the Sith, the current conflict has absolutely nothing to do with NSO beyond their participation in a holdover front from the NpO-\m/ conflict.
[/quote]

It is the same conflict.

James, same opinion more or less has been discussed back and forth here for past few days. If you go over the contents, you would find arguments in favor and against all over the place. You will also find answer to your query in my earlier post.

Edited February 16, 2010 by shahenshah

[Timmmehhh]

[quote name='arentak' date='16 February 2010 - 01:02 PM' timestamp='1266321755' post='2185432']
This has everything to do with NSO.

Any way you spin global war, IRON was on one side, Supercomplaints was on the other. Knowing that an IRON ally, NSO, was being hit, TOP's involvement was inevitable. That we chose to deploy in a manner that we "thought" would give our side the best chance for winning is irrelevant.
[/quote]
This is strangest spin ever. So TOP was basically chosing NSO above Umbrella, a direct MDoAP partner who was willing to die for you. Umbrella was already under attack by like 13 million NS (NATO, The Foreign Division, NADC and Nueva Vidia) while IRON wasn't even involved yet. You guys simply decided that is was the best time to strike C&G and you had the odds in your favor big-time until the NpO \m/ peace happened. I know TOP thought they would win this for sure, I remember MrCyber from TOP querying me that FOK was on the losing side of the conflict and that TOP would shoot down some alliances big-time. if it wasn't for the peace between \m/ and NpO it would have happened, luckily for us it didn't.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Timmehhh

[Banksy]

[quote name='TailsK' date='17 February 2010 - 12:01 AM' timestamp='1266321682' post='2185431']
TIFDTT's declaration of war was pre-emptive, NOT aggressive. There is a difference. For those of you who fail to comprehend such differences, I invite you to read the definitions of [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pre-emptive"]pre-emptive[/url] and [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aggressive"]aggressive[/url] for yourselves. Coming to the conclusion that this was, in fact, a pre-emptive war, was easy. After speaking to people on all "sides" of the current conflict (members of C&G included), they all agree that even if there was no pre-emptive strike, we would still be in an almost identical situation had IRON declared on someone else (in defence of NSO).[/quote]
There certainly is a difference between pre-emptive and aggressive. But this was not pre-emptive. Why? Because there was no evidence that C&G was to attack TOP.

[quote name='TailsK' date='17 February 2010 - 12:01 AM' timestamp='1266321682' post='2185431']
TIFDTT became involved in an existing war, they did not create a new one. Regardless of circumstance, NpO declared war against \m/. Had that war not existed, neither would the current one.[/quote]
The OP from the TOP declaration declared that TIFDTT were joining in as a part of a coalition effort. But ITT- TOP members have admitted they did not know of the peace talks between the NpO and \m/. This is hardly a functioning coalition. To claim that the declaration was a part of the original war seems doubtful. Addressing the final sentence here- it is true that without the NPO-\m/ conflict this war would not have occurred. But because C&G was not involved in that war- it is irrelevant.
[quote name='TailsK' date='17 February 2010 - 12:01 AM' timestamp='1266321682' post='2185431']
Some claim that TOP's supposed paranoia created this war. Even paranoia has its roots. To claim innocence and pretend that peoples' attitudes and snide remarks towards TOP were not a factor in breeding such supposed paranoia fools no one but yourselves.[/quote]
This was certainly the attitude that came through in the logs. It is interesting. I disagree- but to save us from further "No U" arguments i'll leave it at that.
[quote name='TailsK' date='17 February 2010 - 12:01 AM' timestamp='1266321682' post='2185431']
There was a clear window of opportunity to end the war immediately after \m/ surrendered. The first wave of attacks on C&G had only just begun, damage was limited and no one had dropped a nuke. The war could have ended there and then, but rather, C&G insisted on continuing the war on the false premise that TIFDTT's actions were aggressive and not pre-emptive. To me, this does little more than prove that TOP's supposed paranoia was not unfounded and that C&G did, indeed, want a war with TOP and its allies.
[/quote]
Is it wrong for C&G to wish to defend itself? We were not involved in the NpO-\m/ war at that stage. As we have said - we view this as aggression.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Methrage' date='16 February 2010 - 05:26 AM' timestamp='1266319572' post='2185400']
Significant means what he says, although log dumping on OWF is below him.
[/quote]
Ah. I skipped over that.

Though, if Archon, Crymson, and Peron were to all agree, I'm sure we could see the logs eh?

[shahenshah]

[quote name='jamesdanaher' date='16 February 2010 - 05:17 PM' timestamp='1266322644' post='2185441']
There certainly is a difference between pre-emptive and aggressive. But this was not pre-emptive. Why? Because there was no evidence that C&G was to attack TOP.
[/quote]
There is evidence in this thread itself that C&G was not neutral to this conflict if their allies were hit and there allies were certainly in this conflict unless I'm mistaken by the treaty web. PM preps were already underway. It was preemptive.

[quote]
The OP from the TOP declaration declared that TIFDTT were joining in as a part of a coalition effort. But ITT- TOP members have admitted they did not know of the peace talks between the NpO and \m/. This is hardly a functioning coalition. [/quote]

I recall many members in Polaris as confused as us.