Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[Timmmehhh]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='16 February 2010 - 05:51 PM' timestamp='1266339102' post='2185722']
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.
[/quote]
Enlighten me about their relationship, since you seem to know everything.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Timmehhh

[Meer Republic]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='16 February 2010 - 04:51 PM' timestamp='1266339102' post='2185722']

That is a very hilarious interpretation of the TOP-Umbrella relationship.

[/quote]

Ah yes and you're the expert on that subject obviously. Do us a favour and don't try and suggest you have some sort of insight on something you have no clue about.

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='jamesdanaher' date='16 February 2010 - 12:40 PM' timestamp='1266320455' post='2185411']
No- Polar's white peace with \m/ would have ended the war. [/quote]

Yes, but the current conflict would had broken out at any other time, with any other excuse.

When the New Year's Eve crisis got suddently resolved, the general perception was that Global War had been only delayed, not prevented. With TOP perceiving CnG as a threat, and haven taken the decision to deal with them in the military way, ruling out the possibility of reaching some sort of understanding through diplomacy... it's clear Global War was gonna happen.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Krashnaia

[Monster]

I am also curious about Haflinger's interpretation of the TOP-Umbrella relationship.

[Wacky Karma]

[quote name='Lord Levistus' date='16 February 2010 - 04:15 AM' timestamp='1266290117' post='2184153']
yawn. Was this supposed to be enlightening? I could have written this for you last week if you had asked.

This is just a rehash of C&G propaganda over the last 2 weeks.
[/quote]

You are right about the part you could have written it a week ago. But you are wrong on the C&G propaganda part (take aside all the things said about what really is propaganda). Several other sources within the IRON, TOP pact stated exactly the same as has been said on post 1.

You should really ask your leaders...

[LeDee]

[quote name='Bodvar Jarl' date='16 February 2010 - 07:58 AM' timestamp='1266328701' post='2185511']
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?

[/quote]
I appreciate the honesty...at least someone on that side is willing to openly admit that a certain degree of incompetence was involved in the decision to declare on CnG.

[tamerlane]

Bob, how are those bizarro-vision goggles workin for ya? I heard they really compliment tinfoil hats.

[Haflinger]

I'm no expert on TOP, but some things are incredibly obvious unless you've got your head buried in sand.

[Drai]

[quote name='Believland' date='15 February 2010 - 08:46 PM' timestamp='1266295561' post='2184510']
"teasing" is a very light term. Anyway, I stopped reading after you mentioned the WoTC. We get it, you got stomped on two years ago and haven't built your nation since then. And since TOP, IRON, and the others have been proactive enough to, they must be executed.
[/quote]
Are you forgetting the Karma war? Any [i]nuclear [/i]war takes a toll on your nation even if you're on the winning side. I lost 11k infra in Karma war. How much did the average TOP nation lose?

I realize you weren't our opponent in that war, but you made it seem like we've had 2 years to rebuild from the no CB war, which isn't true in the slightest.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Drai

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='16 February 2010 - 12:56 PM' timestamp='1266342971' post='2185773']
I'm no expert on TOP, but some things are incredibly obvious unless you've got your head buried in sand.
[/quote]

Nice cop out.

[Archon]

[quote name='Stetson' date='16 February 2010 - 03:39 AM' timestamp='1266309565' post='2185284']
I believe that your first assertion that C&G had not intention of entering the war can be answered by this quote:

Now, he's not saying that they necessarily wanted to enter it but it is clear that if TOP/IRON had followed the treaty line, which everyone on the C&G side insists would have been find and dandy, they would have been countered by C&G. Does that make preemption smart? No. Does it make it tactically correct? At this point it is obvious that it wasn't. Was the premise of their thought process sound that no matter in what manner they became involved in this war 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]
[quote name='Bob Janova' date='16 February 2010 - 11:03 AM' timestamp='1266336185' post='2185644']
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.
[/quote]

I'm putting these two quotes together because they both display the same logical inaccuracy used to fuel incorrect arguments. C&G has repeatedly stated that IF TOP and IRON hit C&G allies, C&G would be forced to attack them. We never stated that we would have specifically sought out TIFDTT, especially with this "Was the premise of their thought process sound that no matter in what manner they became involved in this war they would end up fighting C&G correct? Absolutely, and the King of the leading C&G alliance admits it right here" from the first quote block. The simple fact remains that there were many ways for TIFDTT to involve themselves without activating a C&G treaty directly, and thus they would not have fought C&G. It's pretty simple, really.

[quote name='bay102174' date='16 February 2010 - 06:04 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]

Exactly what were you folks expecting? We had an honest talk of which the singular goal was to understand the motivations of TIFDTT so that a decision could be made with respect to the war and its ending. Just because I drew conclusions that you didn't like doesn't mean I betrayed anyone's trust or anything - had I know you folks would try to character assassinate me (as you did in WWE) just for not agreeing with you I wouldn't have sat down and talked with you like that. I certainly won't make that mistake in the future, at any rate. However, I should note that, after the various attacks on me, I did show the logs to one or two other trusted leaders who are not directly involved in the TIFDTT front and thus far those who have read them and have gotten back to me have agreed completely with our assessment. I did not want to dump the damn logs because I figured that would be a betrayal of trust and honesty, but with all the little character-assassinating comments you folks are making, I'm beginning to wonder why I'm bothering.

[quote name='TailsK' date='16 February 2010 - 07:01 AM' timestamp='1266321682' post='2185431']
:words:
[/quote]

Sup lol:
"aggressive: characterized by or tending toward [b]unprovoked offensives, attacks, invasions, or the like[/b]; militantly forward or menacing"

Unless you're trying to claim that C&G was inducing TIFDTT to attack our allies (which would have led to us attacking TIFDTT in a defensive response), then you're wrong.

[quote name='Thorgrum' date='16 February 2010 - 07:15 AM' timestamp='1266322520' post='2185438']
That is a dam shame then. We have Archon making his case and the other parties not only questioning his intent [b]but calling him a flat out liar.[/b] 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.
[/quote]

The character assassination is nothing new. They did it in WWE too. When you can't address the message, attack the messenger I suppose. I mentioned the log dumping above in my reply to bay, but as I've said before, I'm more and more inclined to present the logs to the world anyway. Of course, I'm sure we all know what would happen - people would fall into partisan lines anyway and bicker and fight and I'd probably be accused of altering them if the discussion goes against TIFDTT and so on. We've all seen it before.

[quote name='SpoiL' date='16 February 2010 - 07:55 AM' timestamp='1266324940' post='2185471']
Because it is convenient.
[/quote]

No, it would be because it's aggression. It was rather inconvenient, really.

[quote name='Bodvar Jarl' date='16 February 2010 - 08:58 AM' timestamp='1266328701' post='2185511']
Not many has enough knowledge of this case to call Archon a liar, and well, it doesn't look like he is.
[/quote]

I appreciate hearing that from one as respected as you.

[LegendoftheSkies]

[quote name='Lenny N Karl' date='16 February 2010 - 09:30 AM' 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.
[/quote]

Welcome to politics. You must be new here...

[deth2munkies]

tl;dr

Archon lays out all the facts about what C&G members have by and large been saying the whole time.

Supporters support.

Opposition calls it BS without grounds.

Nothing changes.

Pitiful when you have such incompetent opponents that they cannot think up an argument to counter the current state of evidence and must rely on claims previously refuted multiple times to build a case.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='deth2munkies' date='16 February 2010 - 01:18 PM' timestamp='1266344329' post='2185814']
tl;dr

Archon lays out all the facts about what C&G members have by and large been saying the whole time.

Supporters support.

Opposition calls it BS without grounds.

Nothing changes.

Pitiful when you have such incompetent opponents that they cannot think up an argument to counter the current state of evidence and must rely on claims previously refuted multiple times to build a case.
[/quote]
I believe your last point goes both ways, especially in light of you pointing out that all that was said in the OP was more or less a regurgitation of things that have already been said.

[Drai]

[quote name='Bodvar Jarl' date='16 February 2010 - 05:58 AM' timestamp='1266328701' post='2185511']
At any rate, let's see who grows bored first, eh?
[/quote]
Haha, maybe not TIFDTT but I'm sure many of the other alliances on their side will.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Drai

[Scorbolt]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='16 February 2010 - 11:26 AM' timestamp='1266344766' post='2185842']
I believe your last point goes both ways, especially in light of you pointing out that all that was said in the OP was more or less a regurgitation of things that have already been said.
[/quote]

After 19 pages of reading I am yet to find any argument which refuted those laid out in the op.

[kriekfreak]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='16 February 2010 - 05:56 PM' timestamp='1266342971' post='2185773']
I'm no expert on TOP, or Umbrella. In fact I don't know !@#$.
[/quote]

Fixed that for you.

Edited February 16, 2010 by kriekfreak

[Town Drunk]

If the alliances surrendering think they get to dictate the terms of peace, show them!

Fight until their ego's are deflated and they'll take whatever terms they get offered (I suspect this time isn't far off)

[AirMe]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='16 February 2010 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1266344766' post='2185842']
I believe your last point goes both ways, especially in light of you pointing out that all that was said in the OP was more or less a regurgitation of things that have already been said.
[/quote]

With that being said, it is sad that Archon had to make this announcement at all. The only thing that really provoked is the gibberish that are coming from your allies and your allies allies.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Scorbolt' date='16 February 2010 - 01:29 PM' timestamp='1266344983' post='2185850']
After 19 pages of reading I am yet to find any argument which refuted those laid out in the op.
[/quote]
Ah, well, I guess I was posting from a position of a bit more behind the scenes knowledge than some. Archon was not caught off guard by the pre-emptive strike. I am certain most of CnG knew it was coming before it happened. Plus, Archon will acknowledge, I am sure, that he knew that if IRON attacked Fark and escalation had proceeded "naturally" that eventually one of MK's allies would have been involved and MK and CnG as a whole would also be involved. He is a realist, at least that is what he told me.

Regardless, my point was simply that he posted what is more or less common knowledge at this point for those "in the know" so posting it was really not necessary. Just as the counter arguments have been unnecessary. This whole discussion centers around previously known issues and is simply a re-addressing of what has already been stated elsewhere numerous times.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='AirMe' date='16 February 2010 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1266346137' post='2185877']
With that being said, it is sad that Archon had to make this announcement at all. The only thing that really provoked is the gibberish that are coming from your allies and your allies allies.
[/quote]
I have observed plenty of "gibberish" in this conflict from both sides.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='16 February 2010 - 01:51 PM' timestamp='1266346282' post='2185883']
I have observed plenty of "gibberish" in this conflict from both sides.
[/quote]

I will agree with that. I see more of it from that side of the conflict than I do from my own. But I will willingly admit I am biased.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='AirMe' date='16 February 2010 - 01:54 PM' timestamp='1266346471' post='2185889']
I will agree with that. I see more of it from that side of the conflict than I do from my own. But I will willingly admit I am biased.
[/quote]
Most people are.

[Pearl]

Its pretty pathetic that they are trying to take advantage of the Post-Karma era by demanding white peace.

White peace is not a right. It is a privilege to those who fought valiantly. It is not for those who fought for an unjust cause.

o/ Pounding them into the ground I suppose

[Haflinger]

[quote name='AirMe' date='16 February 2010 - 01:54 PM' timestamp='1266346471' post='2185889']
I will agree with that. I see more of it from that side of the conflict than I do from my own. But I will willingly admit I am biased.
[/quote]
I have seen so much of it from both sides it is becoming extremely difficult to do a comparison.