Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='TailsK' date='16 February 2010 - 12:01 PM' timestamp='1266321682' post='2185431']
[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).[/quote]

A pre emptive war is aggressive, are you saying it is not? You also make a curious distinction at the end stating more or less it would have happened anyway, clever.

[quote][*]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]

Odd given the ending of your first list item, usually the contradictions happen much later in the prose.

[quote][*]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]

Yes it did create this war, and while most of us will concede that some paranoia was justified this "paranoia" didnt just form with the \M/ war. Some of us that sat around in Citadel saw this begining at the end of Karma, some would say even before then.

[quote][*]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]
[/quote]

So they were attacked, preemptively (as you like to say not aggressively) and because they didnt end it Tops supposed paranoia is well founded? Bravo your absolutely in the right alliance now Talisk because its one thing to believe that, its another to actually pontificate to others they should see it that way as well.

Rogue: "I attacked you, youve made comments about me I dont like"

Rogued "yeah but I never hit your nation dude"

Rogue "Its your fault that I declared, your words made it a fore gone conclusion"

Rogued "huh?"

Rogue "You wont give me peace, you wanted this war all along and you know it"

Rogued "but you attacked me"

Rogue "you made me do it"

Thanks Talisk, its good to see you about though it was a good read all the same.

Cheers mate

[Banksy]

[quote name='shahenshah' date='17 February 2010 - 12:25 AM' timestamp='1266323124' post='2185449']
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]
Which of our allies were attacking TOP or IRON's allies? As I understand it- SF alliances were attacking the NSO at the time. The only way for us to 'go in' would be via ghost DoWs and optional aggression clauses. There was no such plan. C&G were reluctant. MK and GR were [i]extremely[/i] active in trying to find a peaceful solution. If C&G had decided to back \m/ and PC- do you really think FoB would have had a large proportion of their alliance leave to defend their PC allies? C&G was prepared to enter- but we were reluctant and were exploring other avenues as TOP DoWed us.

[quote name='shahenshah' date='17 February 2010 - 12:25 AM' timestamp='1266323124' post='2185449']
I recall many members in Polaris as confused as us.
[/quote]
I'm sure Polaris government members were not confused as to the state of peace talks. If you were entering on behalf of a coalition- surely you would have a high level of communication with those in-the-know?

[der_ko]

[quote name='Timmehhh' date='16 February 2010 - 01:17 PM' timestamp='1266322643' post='2185440']
This is strangest spin ever. So TOP was basically cosing 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.
[/quote]
I agree with the esteemed dutchman here.

[James I]

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='16 February 2010 - 10:00 AM' timestamp='1266314422' post='2185333']
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...
[/quote]
No. It was the way the treaty web is currently constructed that made TOP/IRON and C&G being on opposing sides of the conflict [i]very[/i] likely in any global conflict.

One minute C&G/SF are cowards for vigorously looking for peace in the TPF War, next minute we're shamefully looking for ways to destroy TOP/IRON!

Edited February 16, 2010 by James I

[TailsK]

Cool, someone noticed my post!
[quote name='jamesdanaher' date='16 February 2010 - 10:17 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]
See, the thing is though, just because there is no evidence that C&G was going to attack TOP, does not mean that we would not have ended up in the same situation. Whether through mutual defence clauses, optional attack clauses or the myriad of treaty chaining we have already witnessed, we would all be in a comparable situation.

[quote name='jamesdanaher' date='16 February 2010 - 10:17 PM' timestamp='1266322644' post='2185441']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]
My understanding is that there were no "peace talks". All \m/ had to do was agree to the original terms set out by the NpO. \m/ agreed to these terms AFTER TIFDTT declared war. Unfortunately, the NpO failed to adjust these terms after other alliances became involved in the conflict. As for TIFDTT's actions, the NpO was fully aware of what was being planned. The proof is here: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80162

[quote name='jamesdanaher' date='16 February 2010 - 10:17 PM' timestamp='1266322644' post='2185441']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]
I can't help but find it contradictory that you admit to having evidence of my statement, yet still seem to disagree...

[quote name='jamesdanaher' date='16 February 2010 - 10:17 PM' timestamp='1266322644' post='2185441']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.[/quote]
I am not saying that it is wrong for anyone to defend themselves. However, the reason TIFDTT entred into the war is clear. Once \m/ surrendered, this war could have ended too. I am also not disputing the fact that you were not involved in the war at that stage. TIFDTT pre-empted your involvement in the war... The fact that you were not involved from the beginning does not automatically make it an aggressive war.

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='Drostan' date='15 February 2010 - 11:01 PM' timestamp='1266296460' post='2184608']
When you have grabbed a wolf by the ears, it is unwise to let them go.

If TOP planned to attack a CnG ally and then get countered, you can't call pre-emptively attacking CnG directly a pre-emptive defensive move at all can you? In fact, as Archon has pointed out, you can only call it was it is: aggressively attacking CnG.

We can sit around debating the what if TOP/IRON had attacked x, would MK have come in? But that doesn't matter, because TOP/IRON didn't attack x, they attacked people who were not involved yet at all. If TOP/IRON had attacked x (CnG ally), and this war had kicked off, that'd be a whole different kettle of fish. TOP/IRON's pro-active declaration on CnG at large was a statement. That statement read: this world isn't big enough for the both of us and the time has come to end you. Thankfully, their FA bungled as per usual, and the war didn't turn into the curb stomp they had hoped.

Now you see all this crap about white peace that is frankly abusrd and totally inappropriate. If some douchebag punches me in the face a few times for no reason, I am hardly obligated to forgive him for it. In fact, I might just be an idiot for doing so. TOP had the war chest and tech advantage going in, and so peacing them out now would only favour their cause as they will be in a far better position to rebuild than most of CnG. Of course, because of this fact, a longer war also favours them in that sense. But the difference is that if CnG wants to hold their feet to the flames, they can hurt TOP more but will have to sacrifice themselves to do so. That way, nobody wins and this war will have been totally harmful for both parties. Such is the nature of this war.

I love seeing the un-concealed hatred in so many TOP responses here. It is also amusing to see people who only a couple short months ago were scolding my alliance mates for their choler and willingness to go to war now saying "shut up and fight!!1@#3" I also love that the most creative spin their side could come up with this time was recycling rhetoric from Karma that doesn't even fit the situation. Times have changed and TOP/IRON have thusfar refused to change with them. Until TOP begins to accept that they have mishandled several important situations, I have little hope that they will regain the dignity they have been hemorrhaging.
[/quote]

the only un-concealed hatred i've witnessed has been from the CnG side... and they said it outright. no reason to continue bickering about who seen who as a threat, otherwise why declare a war? agreeing to white peace doesn't mean TOP/friends would come back for CnG, that there is [i][b]paranoia[/b][/i] and CnG believing TOP/friends ever was or ever will be a [i][b]threat[/b][/i]. obviously that's denied.

but either way, like you said, this war isnt going to end anytime soon and will just see both sides ground down. because really, the war isnt being fought for anything like it was meant to be, it's only being fought because both sides dont want to be seen as the ones backing down. white peace would solve that and it's unfortunate that there was no willingness to hear what terms CnG would've offered. it's not like they'd have to be accepted.

[SpoiL]

[quote name='jamesdanaher' date='16 February 2010 - 07:17 AM' timestamp='1266322644' post='2185441']
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.
[/quote]

Because it is convenient.

[Banksy]

[quote name='TailsK' date='17 February 2010 - 12:45 AM' timestamp='1266324308' post='2185464']
See, the thing is though, just because there is no evidence that C&G was going to attack TOP, does not mean that we would not have ended up in the same situation. Whether through mutual defence clauses, optional attack clauses or the myriad of treaty chaining we have already witnessed, we would all be in a comparable situation.[/quote]
Here is where it stops becoming pre-emptive and becomes aggressive. I'll use this as an example. In the next war- C&G and, say, MCXA will be on different sides. There is a very strong possibility that we will end up fighting one and other. So should we DoW them now? With no cause? No- because that is not pre-emptive but aggressive.

[quote name='TailsK' date='17 February 2010 - 12:45 AM' timestamp='1266324308' post='2185464']
My understanding is that there were no "peace talks". All \m/ had to do was agree to the original terms set out by the NpO. \m/ agreed to these terms AFTER TIFDTT declared war. Unfortunately, the NpO failed to adjust these terms after other alliances became involved in the conflict. As for TIFDTT's actions, the NpO was fully aware of what was being planned. The proof is here: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80162[/quote]
No- \m/ agreed before. C&G was aware of the peace well before TOP attacked us. The peace was only communicated to the OWF after TOP launched attacks. All this shows is that TOP's 'coalition' had further communication issues, weakening the flimsy "coalition CB' even further.

[quote name='TailsK' date='17 February 2010 - 12:45 AM' timestamp='1266324308' post='2185464']
I can't help but find it contradictory that you admit to having evidence of my statement, yet still seem to disagree...[/quote]
It's a matter of perspective.

[quote name='TailsK' date='17 February 2010 - 12:45 AM' timestamp='1266324308' post='2185464']
I am not saying that it is wrong for anyone to defend themselves. However, the reason TIFDTT entred into the war is clear. Once \m/ surrendered, this war could have ended too. I am also not disputing the fact that you were not involved in the war at that stage. TIFDTT pre-empted your involvement in the war... The fact that you were not involved from the beginning does not automatically make it an aggressive war.
[/quote]
Yes- it does.

[SpoiL]

[quote name='jamesdanaher' date='16 February 2010 - 07:34 AM' timestamp='1266323681' post='2185454']
I'm sure Polaris government members were not confused as to the state of peace talks. If you were entering on behalf of a coalition- surely you would have a high level of communication with those in-the-know?
[/quote]

You'd think so, wouldn't you? [img]http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa134/SpoiL724/nso.gif[/img]

[TailsK]

[quote name='Thorgrum' date='16 February 2010 - 10:29 PM' timestamp='1266323365' post='2185453']
A pre emptive war is aggressive, are you saying it is not? You also make a curious distinction at the end stating more or less it would have happened anyway, clever.[/quote]
You can read the definitions for yourself. Pre-emptive does not mean aggressive. They are not one and the same.

[quote name='Thorgrum' date='16 February 2010 - 10:29 PM' timestamp='1266323365' post='2185453']Odd given the ending of your first list item, usually the contradictions happen much later in the prose.[/quote]
I fail to see the contradiction. I was presenting you with two different situations.

[quote name='Thorgrum' date='16 February 2010 - 10:29 PM' timestamp='1266323365' post='2185453']Yes it did create this war, and while most of us will concede that some paranoia was justified this "paranoia" didnt just form with the \M/ war. Some of us that sat around in Citadel saw this begining at the end of Karma, some would say even before then.[/quote]
Thank you for admitting that the paranoia was justified.

[quote name='Thorgrum' date='16 February 2010 - 10:29 PM' timestamp='1266323365' post='2185453']So they were attacked, preemptively (as you like to say not aggressively) and because they didnt end it Tops supposed paranoia is well founded? Bravo your absolutely in the right alliance now Talisk because its one thing to believe that, its another to actually pontificate to others they should see it that way as well.

Rogue: "I attacked you, youve made comments about me I dont like"

Rogued "yeah but I never hit your nation dude"

Rogue "Its your fault that I declared, your words made it a fore gone conclusion"

Rogued "huh?"

Rogue "You wont give me peace, you wanted this war all along and you know it"

Rogued "but you attacked me"

Rogue "you made me do it"

Thanks Talisk, its good to see you about though it was a good read all the same.

Cheers mate[/quote]
There is a significant difference when comparing a single individual to a collective such as an alliance or an entire bloc. Alliances are governed by charters, many of which include what is and is not acceptable behaviour towards others. It is a shame that these things are not always enforced. I can't help but think that Planet Bob would be a significantly nicer place if people made an effort to enforce better behaviour.



Edit: Missed a word.

Edited February 16, 2010 by TailsK

[uaciaut]

You know as much as i enjoying the decrying and labelling as propaganda that's being thrown around by many TOP members and allies, why aren't you countering it if you feel it's untrue? You do have the same logs that C&G got a hold of, do you not? You've got all the info to build a retort with - if there's any space for it.

edit: [quote name='Timmehhh' date='16 February 2010 - 02:17 PM' timestamp='1266322643' post='2185440']
This is strangest spin ever. So TOP was basically cosing 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.
[/quote]


This made me chuckle

Edited February 16, 2010 by uaciaut

[TailsK]

[quote name='jamesdanaher' date='16 February 2010 - 10:56 PM' timestamp='1266324980' post='2185472']
Here is where it stops becoming pre-emptive and becomes aggressive. I'll use this as an example. In the next war- C&G and, say, MCXA will be on different sides. There is a very strong possibility that we will end up fighting one and other. So should we DoW them now? With no cause? No- because that is not pre-emptive but aggressive.[/quote]
Would you mind giving me an example of what you consider to be pre-emptive?

[quote name='jamesdanaher' date='16 February 2010 - 10:56 PM' timestamp='1266324980' post='2185472']No- \m/ agreed before. C&G was aware of the peace well before TOP attacked us. The peace was only communicated to the OWF after TOP launched attacks. All this shows is that TOP's 'coalition' had further communication issues, weakening the flimsy "coalition CB' even further.[/quote]
TIFDTT cannot be blamed for something it did not know, if it was not told. Had TIFDTT known that the war had ended, they would not have declared war.

[quote name='jamesdanaher' date='16 February 2010 - 10:56 PM' timestamp='1266324980' post='2185472']Yes- it does.[/quote]
See my first question in this post.



And with this post, I am off to bed. Good night!

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='TailsK' date='16 February 2010 - 01:06 PM' timestamp='1266325610' post='2185477']
You can read the definitions for yourself. Pre-emptive does not mean aggressive. They are not one and the same.[/quote]

Of course the technical definitions are not the same, its the context by which they are applied Talisk, you know that. Pre emptive strikes, in this context are aggressive. They maybe in lue of anticipated strikes based on justified paranoia but the one who strikes first is the aggressor. Or more accurately more aggressive.

[quote]I fail to see the contradiction. I was presenting you with two different situations.[/quote]

I expected you would fail to see it.


[quote]Thank you for admitting that the paranoia was justified.[/quote]

Your welcome. Anyone here who proclaims it wasnt has no idea of the historical context by which it is derived. However that paranoia was to a degree self inflicted based on interactions from the TOP side as well. Now I also concede this assertion is highly subjective, but again I have a unique perspective I sat in Citadel and read the arguments (what I had access to which was more then I thought I would). Justified paranoia or not, we know that the paranoia was used to justify attacks on CnG at what was percieved to be thier weakest moment (polar being engaged). Tactically it made sense, but TOP banking on Polar to not get reinvolved has got to be one of the worst miscalcuations ive seen in my time here.

[quote]There is a significant difference when comparing a single individual to a collective such as an alliance or an entire bloc. Alliances are governed by charters, many of which include what is and is not acceptable behaviour towards others. It is a shame that these things are not always enforced. I can't help but think that Planet Bob would be a significantly nicer place if people made an effort to enforce better behaviour.[/quote]

Well thats a bold statement Talisk, but you are certainly in an alliance now that has the ability, will and seeming resolve to enact such a crusade. However my simplistic example is spot on in this case, it just so happens that an entire alliance collectively went along for the ride. I wish you well in this endevor, and give you a lot of credit. Publically stating that enforcing better behaviour is bold even if your waxing poetic. You should visit the TOP embassy on the Gramlins boards that would be a very entertaining conversation indeed.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Thorgrum

[Bodvar Jarl]

Not many has enough knowledge of this case to call Archon a liar, and well, it doesn't look like he is.

But really, only a fool will not see that this is him placing his side of the argument in the best light he can do.

While opinions may vary, there are two factors, not more, to consider:

1. TOP was going to get involved on the side of IRON (and NpO) in what we saw as a war that would escalate significantly.
2. We were certain that CnG would get involved on the other side at some point.

Synthesis is that we determined that seizing the initiative would likely bring a more favourable outcome, in hindsight that appears to be a blunder, but once made, there isn't much turning back, is there?

Now, since I'm 90% Diplomat, 10% abomination (or is it the other way around?), I'm not entirely agreeing with the message we sent out with a pre-emtpive strike like that. Our so called paranoia have, as far as I can discern, been significantly smaller than most outsiders seems to believe or want to believe, of course it was there, likely in larger doses than healthy, but the hype it has received is undeserved. Then again, it's all about the message sent, which doesn't quite support that idea.

At any rate, let's see who grows bored first, eh?

[Razorpara]

[quote name='TailsK' date='16 February 2010 - 02:19 PM' timestamp='1266326346' post='2185483']
Would you mind giving me an example of what you consider to be pre-emptive?


TIFDTT cannot be blamed for something it did not know, if it was not told. Had TIFDTT known that the war had ended, they would not have declared war.


See my first question in this post.



And with this post, I am off to bed. Good night!
[/quote]


TIFDTT cannot be blamed for some they didn't know?
thats news to me. lol the war ended couple hours or day after they declared on us .what you mean they didn't know
did I miss some here.

-Razor

[Some-Guy]

[quote name='Bodvar Jarl' date='16 February 2010 - 01:58 PM' timestamp='1266328701' post='2185511']
Now, since I'm 90% Diplomat, 10% abomination (or is it the other way around?),
[/quote]

You're also 9% sexy, regardless.

[Lenny N Karl]

This is all really sad to watch really. Your statements are all full of spin, mutated views and outright misrepresentations. and I mean BOTH sides of this.

You are all just paper generals, living out visions of some self gratifying goal of revenge, malice, or need to dominate or destroy. You all don't look at the bigger picture of all this. Immaturity and egotistical blindness have most of the leaders in this war so self involved, without a care for the overall well being of BoB. The old saying is, cutting off the nose to spite the face, i believe. BoB lost 6,000 nations after the Karma war. I suspect this one will kill even more. The actions of the supposed "leaders" show no care for allies, no care for their members, no care for BoB. In the end all you will have is your own small bitter crowd of miscreants to bully around, the same old hatreds to bicker over, and no real attempts to improve or change yourselves and others. Where are the true leaders of men(& women) out there willing to step up and run the show right?

you can win without crushing the neck of your opponent under your feet, there is no honor in that no matter how you spin it. And you can lose graciously and accept public defeat in humility. Arrogance and pride are a hollow mask to wear. The goal is to win with honor, not destroy without mercy. There should be some level of respect and decency. BoB lacks that more and more every year. All of you posters on this forum are not the only ones in this world. I think you forget that sometimes...



/just an opinion, still like many of you on both sides. hate none of you on this planet.

[Meer Republic]

[quote name='Lenny N Karl' date='16 February 2010 - 02:30 PM' timestamp='1266330620' post='2185541']
This is all really sad to watch really. Your statements are all full of spin, mutated views and outright misrepresentations. and I mean BOTH sides of this.

You are all just paper generals, living out visions of some self gratifying goal of revenge, malice, or need to dominate or destroy. You all don't look at the bigger picture of all this. Immaturity and egotistical blindness have most of the leaders in this war so self involved, without a care for the overall well being of BoB. The old saying is, cutting off the nose to spite the face, i believe. BoB lost 6,000 nations after the Karma war. I suspect this one will kill even more. The actions of the supposed "leaders" show no care for allies, no care for their members, no care for BoB. In the end all you will have is your own small bitter crowd of miscreants to bully around, the same old hatreds to bicker over, and no real attempts to improve or change yourselves and others. Where are the true leaders of men(& women) out there willing to step up and run the show right?

you can win without crushing the neck of your opponent under your feet, there is no honor in that no matter how you spin it. And you can lose graciously and accept public defeat in humility. Arrogance and pride are a hollow mask to wear. The goal is to win with honor, not destroy without mercy. There should be some level of respect and decency. BoB lacks that more and more every year. All of you posters on this forum are not the only ones in this world. I think you forget that sometimes...



/just an opinion, still like many of you on both sides. hate none of you on this planet.
[/quote]

I may be directly fighting you guys, but bravo, seriously. Finally someone with the common sense to look past all this bluster.

As an aside you should be proud of your alliance mates the ones I've encountered during this fiasco have been nothing but decent.

[Moridin]

[quote name='jamesdanaher' date='16 February 2010 - 04:34 AM' timestamp='1266323681' post='2185454']
I'm sure Polaris government members were not confused as to the state of peace talks.
[/quote]

Why are you sure of that?

Edited February 16, 2010 by Moridin

[Lenny N Karl]

[quote name='Meer Republic' date='16 February 2010 - 02:46 PM' timestamp='1266331595' post='2185552']
I may be directly fighting you guys, but bravo, seriously. Finally someone with the common sense to look past all this bluster.

As an aside you should be proud of your alliance mates the ones I've encountered during this fiasco have been nothing but decent.
[/quote]

Thank you for the comment Meercat, I have heard the same specifically about you. Umbrella are some tough & decent fighters as well.

[Bob Janova]

tl;dr: We talked to Crymson and then came to the conclusion we'd been pushing for a week. We will continue to roll TOP/IRON until 'they are no longer a threat', but don't worry, we aren't Hegemony 2.0, because it's not gone on for long yet. We acknowledge that we would have countered TOP/IRON through a treaty connection. We did know it was coming and pushed NpO to peace out so we could roll TOP/IRON, instead of avoiding the 'new war' completely by tipping them off that peace was coming imminently.

Edit: A pre-emptive attack is aggressive, certainly. But 'blatant and unprovoked'? Well, that's been covered in other threads. Aggression has also been committed by FOK, Stickmen, Superfriends, Dark Fist, Aircastle and many more on the raiding side, so let's not bandy it about like a dirty word, because people are jumping in without obligations all over this war.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Bob Janova

[flak attack]

[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]
If that's what this was about, maybe you should have hit someone fighting NSO then, not people who wouldn't get involved on that front.

[quote name='Timmehhh' date='16 February 2010 - 07:17 AM' timestamp='1266322643' post='2185440']
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.
[/quote]
Don't forget that defending Umbrella (you know, TOP's MDoAP partner) was the most likely entry for MK on that side when TOP hit us. FOK was well defended and Umbrella was MK's only other ally on that side at the time.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='AirMe' date='15 February 2010 - 10:44 PM' timestamp='1266291841' post='2184287']
Having had a hand in 75% of the treaties that MK has, I can guarantee you that unless MT has tanked the FA department, there is regular and daily contact between every treaty partner that MK has. So, no, not like what Dilber did with WUT and the NPO FA strategy after GW1.

In my time as LHE for MK I made sure that everyone of our treaty partners knew where we stood all the time with as much lead time as possible to prevent a repeat of the BAPS situation and to prevent things from devolving into what happened to NPO in Karma and NpO in the noCB war.
[/quote]
That's actually what NPO FA was like under Dilber.

[quote name='Denial' date='15 February 2010 - 10:53 PM' timestamp='1266292385' post='2184323']
So we're in agreement that TOP, IRON & friends aggressively struck C&G in an opportunistic manner.
[/quote]
Sure, if you agree that Vanguard aggressively struck Legion in an opportunistic manner that August.

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='15 February 2010 - 11:00 PM' timestamp='1266292844' post='2184354']
Actually, if the TOP and IRON side had simply followed through treaties I think the overall size of the conflict would be pretty much the same and ongoing, just that the sides would be more evenly distributed than they are currently.
[/quote]
This man is very wise. You should listen to him.

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='15 February 2010 - 11:03 PM' timestamp='1266292999' post='2184363']
The declaration occurred prior to the peace between Polar and \m/, correct?
[/quote]
Yes, it did. The historical revisionism is already kicking in, Ivan.

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='15 February 2010 - 11:12 PM' timestamp='1266293575' post='2184399']
RV, SOS is on their side. Why would they roll their puppets?
[/quote]
Eventually, you run out of things to roll.

[quote name='delendum' date='16 February 2010 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1266299088' post='2184855']
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.
[/quote]
Interesting how you explain Invicta's realpolitik reason for staying in the war so concisely. The most interesting part of all this is that C&G appears to be willing to burn to cement the position of Superfriends at the top.

[quote name='Style #386' date='16 February 2010 - 06:45 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]
The current conflict is entirely dependent on NSO. IRON would not have been involved in this war at all if not for NSO participation.

[quote name='Timmehhh' date='16 February 2010 - 07:17 AM' timestamp='1266322643' post='2185440']
So TOP was basically chosing NSO above Umbrella, a direct MDoAP partner who was willing to die for you.
[/quote]
That is a very hilarious interpretation of the TOP-Umbrella relationship.

You know, not long before the Unjust War, NpO and GOONS were MADP partners.

[Locke]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='15 February 2010 - 11:10 PM' timestamp='1266293437' post='2184392']
[color="#0000FF"]So I take it that you are no longer planning to roll the SOS Brigade? I shall see to it that they are informed of this change in their situation.[/color]
[/quote]
I highly doubt this. Especially given the sentiments shared by many wartime allies in our DoW. SOS just doesn't get the love. Is it my hair? Is my zipper down? I just don't know what to do.

[neneko]

Wow janova. Way to set a new low on your straw grasping.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='16 February 2010 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1266336185' post='2185644']
We will continue to roll TOP/IRON until 'they are no longer a threat', but don't worry, we aren't Hegemony 2.0, because it's not gone on for long yet.
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure we're not the ones that attacked with the cb "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". I'm fairly sure that was TOP. Them losing the war doesn't change this fact.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='16 February 2010 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1266336185' post='2185644']
We acknowledge that we would have countered TOP/IRON through a treaty connection.
[/quote]
We have acknowledged that we hold treaties and will honor them. I don't think anyone has tried to deny this fact. Our prefered solution to the conflict was peace since we had connections on both sides. Wich leads to you final 'point'.


[quote name='Bob Janova' date='16 February 2010 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1266336185' post='2185644']
We did know it was coming and pushed NpO to peace out so we could roll TOP/IRON, instead of avoiding the 'new war' completely by tipping them off that peace was coming imminently.
[/quote]
We worked for peace from before the first DoW was posted, we kept working for peace to be achieved all the way through to the peace agreement betwen \m/ and polar.


Nice tries janova. Keep reaching for the [s]stars[/s] straws