Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='16 February 2010 - 06:51 PM' timestamp='1266346282' post='2185883']
I have observed plenty of "gibberish" in this conflict from both sides.
[/quote]

Agreed, however there are some specifics Archon stated in his op. Later we have people claiming he is a liar, well what specifically is he lying about?

Specifics from the original post:

[quote]The attacks perpetrated by TOP and her allies against the Complaints and Grievances Union were born out of paranoia, unsubstantiated by concrete evidence beyond teasing and whatnot by regular C&G members (but few or no instances by government), and ultimately justified by reasoning that boils down to "you were going to defend your allies who we would be attacking, thus you'd be at war at us, thus that's an aggressive threat against us."[/quote]

Can someone dispel this as a lie?

[quote]
It has been made clear to us, the Union, that, at least with respect to TOP and IRON, the only exit path from this current war is a global white peace.[/quote]

Is this the lie?

[quote]We would also like to publicly assert that at no time did the Complaints and Grievances Union ever intend to aggressively pursue war against TOP or IRON. We do indeed recognize the fact that, had TOP or IRON hit our allies, we would be honor bound to defend them. We would also like to note that 2 + 2 = 4, as we feel these two statements are equally obvious. [/quote]

this?

Now that we have some rational people here lets get to the dirt.... If archon is lying show us where. I will be the first in line to say "yep, he lied" and offer a good dose of humility. Until then, its been my limited expirence with him and MK that they dont !@#$%^&* when friends are on the line and involved.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Thorgrum' date='16 February 2010 - 01:58 PM' timestamp='1266346728' post='2185902']
Agreed, however there are some specifics Archon stated in his op. Later we have people claiming he is a liar, well what specifically is he lying about?

Specifics from the original post:



Can someone dispel this as a lie?



Is this the lie?



this?

Now that we have some rational people here lets get to the dirt.... If archon is lying show us where. I will be the first in line to say "yep, he lied" and offer a good dose of humility. Until then, its been my limited expirence with him and MK that they dont !@#$%^&* when friends are on the line and involved.
[/quote]
I never stated Archon was lying so I am afraid that although you quoted me and evidently are addressing this towards me I have no answer for you.

[Scorbolt]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='16 February 2010 - 11:50 AM' timestamp='1266346240' post='2185881']
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.
[/quote]

This topic has never been about whether Archon was aware of the pre-emptive strike planned by TIFDTT nor is it about whether those in CnG felt they would inevitably fight TOP and IRON in relation to the NpO - \m/ war.

Also, the topic is clearly addressed to people who are NOT "in the know" because there are so many who believe they either, are in the know, or simply pretend to be, who are more than willing to generate the rumors this post attempts to address.

[Stetson76]

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='16 February 2010 - 12:11 PM' timestamp='1266343894' post='2185799']
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]

What is pretty simple is figuring out that TOP/IRON could look at the conflict and come to the conclusion that they would be fighting you. Whether or not they had another way in is irrelevant. The decision making process is one of logical steps. One step leads to another, so yes if they had decided to defend an ally that was not at war with someone tied to you then the decision to hit you makes no sense. However, if they knew that their defense was going to lead to fighting you, then the first step on the path to preemption was a solid one. (Not that the end of that path resulted in a positive outcome for any of us.)

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='16 February 2010 - 12:11 PM' timestamp='1266343894' post='2185799']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]

So, you told the people that you were talking with that this discussion was going to determine C&G's stance on the continuation of the war? I highly doubt that anyone opposing you in the future will be naive enough to sit down and have a honest talk without expecting that the conversation will be used for propaganda and therefore I don't believe you have to worry about making that mistake in the future. I'm not saying using whatever advantages you can muster is a bad thing, this appears to be yet another example of TOP/IRON being way to trusting of people they have no reason to trust (Grub).

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='16 February 2010 - 12:11 PM' timestamp='1266343894' post='2185799']
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]

No, as you stated in the OP, C&G was baiting TOP well before this issue arose.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Stetson

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='16 February 2010 - 07:00 PM' timestamp='1266346811' post='2185903']
I never stated Archon was lying so I am afraid that although you quoted me and evidently are addressing this towards me I have no answer for you.
[/quote]

You are correct I quoted you, more for effect. You are able to cut through the crap and get to the heart of it. While i didnt anticiapte you would have answers directly (although something tells me you might know a touch more then the peanut gallery ) A continued conversation with you involved is more likely to get us to something factual.

Since your here now its prudent to use your prescence to that end, as I see it you are perhaps one of the more rational on the other side.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Scorbolt' date='16 February 2010 - 02:01 PM' timestamp='1266346889' post='2185908']
This topic has never been about whether Archon was aware of the pre-emptive strike planned by TIFDTT nor is it about whether those in CnG felt they would inevitably fight TOP and IRON in relation to the NpO - \m/ war.

Also, the topic is clearly addressed to people who are NOT "in the know" because there are so many who believe they either, are in the know, or simply pretend to be, who are more than willing to generate the rumors this post attempts to address.
[/quote]
Rumors are what caused this idiocy.

I never heard these supposed rumors and from what I can gather most of those that I speak with never heard them either. So I am of the opinion that not addressing them would have been the better option. The masses are fickle and more often than not, gullible, if it had just been let go then it would not have been an issue, in my opinion.

"Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied."

[Lenny N Karl]

[quote name='LegendoftheSkies' date='16 February 2010 - 06:17 PM' timestamp='1266344275' post='2185812']
Welcome to politics. You must be new here...
[/quote]


Not new and this isn't politics...this is playground cliques fighting over the rules of kickball. Been around for a while now, was hoping to see the "politics" actually grow up.

[Baden-Württemberg]

[quote name='Lenny N Karl' date='16 February 2010 - 03:30 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]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Also, I doubt anyone in TSO asked for peace. I doubt anyone of TSO has ever taking tech from MK.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Lenny N Karl' date='16 February 2010 - 02:12 PM' timestamp='1266347541' post='2185923']
Not new and this isn't politics...this is playground cliques fighting over the rules of kickball. Been around for a while now, was hoping to see the "politics" actually grow up.
[/quote]
I don't expect that to happen anytime soon. I have been hoping for it since July 2006.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Ivan Moldavi

[Scorbolt]

[quote name='Stetson' date='16 February 2010 - 12:03 PM' timestamp='1266346986' post='2185911']
No, as you stated in the OP, C&G was baiting TOP well before this issue arose.
[/quote]

Okay, where?

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Scorbolt' date='16 February 2010 - 02:18 PM' timestamp='1266347923' post='2185936']
Okay, where?
[/quote]
Do you read these forums?

[Rafael Nadal]

Reading none of this topic, other than the OP before it was posted, these are my thoughts:

I don't care about arguing aggression/defensive pre-emption or whatever you want to argue it is. The fact remains the same, TOP, IRON, TORN and others attacked CnG as a whole in a manner which they believed was most likely to result in a victory for them. This manner was a pre-emptive strike to catch most of us in a non-militarized state and to choose their first targets as they'd like. I congratulate you on doing this, as really, you needed to do that in order to have the best shot to defeat us (if we are to assume CnG would fight TOP, IRON, etc without the pre-emption). I'm not sure what potential alliances you lost, if any, but you seemed to have a decent enough amount backing you in your action, so I guess it was a somewhat decent idea to go through with.

So, speaking in the same objective, non-emotional terms, why would CnG give TOP, IRON, TORN collective white peace now? Clearly, because our advantage is in number of nations in the midrange, rather than matching your upper tier numbers and warchests as a whole, peacing you out now without massive reparations (which I don't believe many desire) benefits you more than us. We essentially lose in a white peace right now. Perhaps this might change in a few war cycles, as your nations continue to be dragged down, have warchests depleted to where you can just straight rebuild past us as soon as peace is declared, etc.

Anyways, just my take on things.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='16 February 2010 - 02:19 PM' timestamp='1266347964' post='2185937']
Do you read these forums?
[/quote]

Were any of the things you are referring to stated by government members?

[Scorbolt]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='16 February 2010 - 12:19 PM' timestamp='1266347964' post='2185937']
Do you read these forums?
[/quote]

Where is it stated in the Op. Also, I think you'll find the majority of 'baiting' in any situation comes from peripherals or people uninvolved entirely.

[Stetson76]

[quote name='Rafael Nadal' date='16 February 2010 - 01:20 PM' timestamp='1266348024' post='2185939']
Reading none of this topic, other than the OP before it was posted, these are my thoughts:

I don't care about arguing aggression/defensive pre-emption or whatever you want to argue it is. The fact remains the same, TOP, IRON, TORN and others attacked CnG as a whole in a manner which they believed was most likely to result in a victory for them. This manner was a pre-emptive strike to catch most of us in a non-militarized state and to choose their first targets as they'd like. I congratulate you on doing this, as really, you needed to do that in order to have the best shot to defeat us (if we are to assume CnG would fight TOP, IRON, etc without the pre-emption). I'm not sure what potential alliances you lost, if any, but you seemed to have a decent enough amount backing you in your action, so I guess it was a somewhat decent idea to go through with.

So, speaking in the same objective, non-emotional terms, why would CnG give TOP, IRON, TORN collective white peace now? Clearly, because our advantage is in number of nations in the midrange, rather than matching your upper tier numbers and warchests as a whole, peacing you out now without massive reparations (which I don't believe many desire) benefits you more than us. We essentially lose in a white peace right now. Perhaps this might change in a few war cycles, as your nations continue to be dragged down, have warchests depleted to where you can just straight rebuild past us as soon as peace is declared, etc.

Anyways, just my take on things.
[/quote]

Thank you for acknowledging the situation as it stands. TOP/IRON messed up and C&G is taking advantage of that. Nothing wrong with either position, and spin trying to make either of those statements untrue is worthless.

The only question I have for you is if the TOP/IRON nations get pulled down into the lower ranks, aren't they going to do even more damage? I am currently fighting someone with 7000 more tech than me and I sure wouldn't wish that on my fellow alliance mates. Why do you think it will go better for you once those huge tech stockpiles get down in the range where they're costing 10% or more damage each strike over more targets (as assumedly, the advantage your speaking of is more nations to hit people with)?

Again, don't disagree with your statement, but am wondering how a prolonged war will end up better for you guys...

[NLights]

May it never end! :top:

[Sunstar]

TIFDTT attacked C&G in order to deal massive damage to C&G. It cannot be denied that (particularly in the upper NS ranges) they have done so thus far. Why would it make any sense for C&G to accept white peace now?

[neneko]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='16 February 2010 - 08:19 PM' timestamp='1266347964' post='2185937']
Do you read these forums?
[/quote]
By your own logic I'd say TORN has a valid cb on invicta by now judging by your own comments against them.

[janax]

[quote name='neneko' date='16 February 2010 - 01:34 PM' timestamp='1266348899' post='2185968']
By your own logic I'd say TORN has a valid cb on invicta by now judging by your own comments against them.
[/quote]

I am heavily in favor of this, tbh.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='neneko' date='16 February 2010 - 02:34 PM' timestamp='1266348899' post='2185968']
By your own logic I'd say TORN has a valid cb on invicta by now judging by your own comments against them.
[/quote]
Frankly, by my own logic, I'd say that TORN has a right to be peeved at me. What they did to me and mine, though... some of us have long memories.

Anyway - find me saying that harassing people on the forums is a CB, and you'll be right.

[mythicknight]

[quote name='janax' date='16 February 2010 - 02:40 PM' timestamp='1266349214' post='2185974']
I am heavily in favor of this, tbh.
[/quote]

The time will come

[silentkiller]

[quote name='Sunstar' date='16 February 2010 - 07:32 PM' timestamp='1266348757' post='2185962']
TIFDTT attacked C&G in order to deal massive damage to C&G. It cannot be denied that (particularly in the upper NS ranges) they have done so thus far. Why would it make any sense for C&G to accept white peace now?
[/quote]

Except that you know white peace could have been given before any nukes were launched and any serious damage was done.

[kerschbs]

[quote name='silentkiller' date='16 February 2010 - 02:49 PM' timestamp='1266349747' post='2185993']
Except that you know white peace could have been given before any nukes were launched and any serious damage was done.
[/quote]



Wait, what? How on earth was C&G going to offer a complete white peace, to the parties that attacked them, 24 hours after the war was declared? I don't like to post much about this whole situation(this whole war is idiocy) but this comment really made me go "huh?" Am I missing something here?

[silentkiller]

[quote name='kerschbs' date='16 February 2010 - 07:54 PM' timestamp='1266350047' post='2186000']
Wait, what? How on earth was C&G going to offer a complete white peace, to the parties that attacked them, 24 hours after the war was declared? I don't like to post much about this whole situation(this whole war is idiocy) but this comment really made me go "huh?" Am I missing something here?
[/quote]

Did you read the post I quoted? If not I suggest you go do that now.

Edit: I might have misread your post and if tht is the case then I apologise. What I meant is that TOP was ready to recieve white peace as soon as they realised that Polar had accepted peace and their DOW was no longer needed. Which would have prevented so much damage to C&G's upper tier.

Edited February 16, 2010 by silentkiller

[Rafael Nadal]

[quote name='Stetson' date='16 February 2010 - 11:27 AM' timestamp='1266348474' post='2185950']
Thank you for acknowledging the situation as it stands. TOP/IRON messed up and C&G is taking advantage of that. Nothing wrong with either position, and spin trying to make either of those statements untrue is worthless.

The only question I have for you is if the TOP/IRON nations get pulled down into the lower ranks, aren't they going to do even more damage? I am currently fighting someone with 7000 more tech than me and I sure wouldn't wish that on my fellow alliance mates. Why do you think it will go better for you once those huge tech stockpiles get down in the range where they're costing 10% or more damage each strike over more targets (as assumedly, the advantage your speaking of is more nations to hit people with)?

Again, don't disagree with your statement, but am wondering how a prolonged war will end up better for you guys...
[/quote]

We also have large nations being dragged down. It's not as if we won't have large tech nations with little infra holding nukes, wrc's, etc in mid and lower ranks. We have more nations, which helps spread out the damage and depletion of warchests amongst our nations, whereas TOP does not have such a luxury. Yes, there are some in TOP that have unbreakable warchests, I and others recognize that. However, we need to, and believe we can get to a point where only a very small number of TOP nations will have the ability to rebuild nearly the instant the war is over.