Jump to content

Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G


Archon

Recommended Posts

[quote name='peron' date='17 February 2010 - 01:57 AM' timestamp='1266371865' post='2186659']
I don't post a lot on these forums for a reason.

However, since I am involved in this particular situation, I feel like it warrants a response.

As you said in your OP Archon, this is your interpretation of the talks Crymson and I had with you. Thats fair enough. In all honestly this is exactly the type of response I expected to hear from you. I did however, expect that to come in private, not a public post on these forums. We told you our side of the story and we were honest with you. It was up to you to interpret it. And you did so in the best way possible to support your side.

You've said so yourself that had we entered on the Super Friends front that you would have been "honor bound" to defend your allies. We saw that too. There was no avoiding it. Therefore, we thought the best course of action was to Pre-empt CnG. A [i]Pre-emptive[/i] strike as part of the original conflict in the NpO-\m/ war. NOT a seperate conflict. That was our reasoning for this war, no matter how you try to spin it.

So I say this, your free to interpret things however you wish. That is your right as a sovereign alliance. But let me remind you, that just because you think thats how things happened, doesn't make it true.

Also for the record, we are not against discussing peace. It was just said that we are unlikely to accept anything other than white peace.
[/quote]

The truth is different depending on who you ask - which is the whole purpose behind making your side of the story available for all. People can read both opinions and make their own conclusions. You are welcome to state yours just as we have.

We aren't prepared to even consider offering you white peace at this point, and so long as you're unlikely to accept anything else, it kind of defeats the purpose of trying to come up with peace terms altogether. We might as well just focus on more important things, like fighting the war.

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='17 February 2010 - 02:05 AM' timestamp='1266372353' post='2186677']
you missed a part.

"You've said so yourself that had we entered on the Super Friends front that you would have been "honor bound" to defend your allies. We saw that too. There was no avoiding it. Therefore, we thought the best course of action was to Pre-empt CnG. A Pre-emptive strike as part of the original conflict in the NpO-\m/ war. NOT a seperate conflict. That was our reasoning for this war, no matter how you try to spin it."

there would've been no misinterpretation of what CnG's course of action would be.
[/quote]

TOP could have entered this war differently to begin with, for example in defense of Umbrella. I don't see by what stretch of logic you like to portray us fighting TOP as inevitable. And even if in the end it happened that we were treaty bound to fight them, it wouldn't have been because we want to "bloody them up and what they stand for".

[quote name='kevin32891' date='17 February 2010 - 02:27 AM' timestamp='1266373631' post='2186714']
So people shouldn't honor their treaties?
[/quote]

Please point me to the treaty TOP honored by declaring on us.

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='17 February 2010 - 02:30 AM' timestamp='1266373823' post='2186721']
Some of the leaders I respected in Karma war are now inheriting the same moronic leadership traits we once fought.

"We wont offer white peace because we fear they will attack us one day in the future," is not only paranoia, but also is the same ideal I once fought against as a Gremlin. Let's disembody them so they never can rise again, lets oppress them till they leave, lets ransack all of their money, and lets force the game into political stagnation once again.

People complain TOP wont do anything, and when they do, they cry about it. A shame I am fighting against them, give them hell TOP.

Sorry if some of you are offended, but I have reached my limit.

However, I will keep an open mind depending on the terms given. I await your decision, Archon, and/or CnG.
[/quote]

Who's complaining? We're more than content with fighting them - in fact this topic states that we want to keep on doing that for a while. We'll gladly fight anybody who wants to see us burn - just don't try to spin it as anything else, it's silly.

You might want to look at the statistics, we're burning just like they are. We don't consider this battle to be over, I don't understand what your problem is with that. Is it a new moral code that states that you must give white peace to the people that attacked you the moment they ask for it?

[quote name='GoddessOfLinn' date='17 February 2010 - 02:54 AM' timestamp='1266375295' post='2186769']
Just wondering what kind of terms C&G would be willing to offer?
[/quote]

We haven't thought of any terms yet. Quite simply, no propositions exist at this point, not even on paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Fronz' date='16 February 2010 - 09:10 PM' timestamp='1266376220' post='2186822']
That is perhaps true for the first week of war, but after continuous anarchy (assuming they stagger) that option is lost and it is the other side that takes advantage of declaring on smaller nations.
[/quote]


No doubt, but they take advantage of it within limits. A 20K NS Nation has a small window of nations that can declare on it. The nations in that window are usually not flush with wonders.




(Edit: added the K to 20)

Edited by AAlumni
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Denial' date='16 February 2010 - 10:12 PM' timestamp='1266376374' post='2186833']
You made the implication both in what you posted and who it was in reply to.
[/quote]
No. I don't think I did. But, you know much more about my thoughts than I do. Maybe your interpretation skills work as well as Archon's.

I have never stated that Archon is "the monster" for not posting them. If anything he is "the monster" for making a pointless thread about the logs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Believland' date='17 February 2010 - 12:46 PM' timestamp='1266376562' post='2186846']
No. I don't think I did. But, you know much more about my thoughts than I do. Maybe your interpretation skills work as well as Archon's.

I have never stated that Archon is "the monster" for not posting them. If anything he is "the monster" for making a pointless thread about the logs.
[/quote]
As Bob/Penlugue Solaris alluded to, do you really think Archon is witholding the logs for any other reason than the 'class' you attributed to Crymson and Peron?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='AAlumni' date='16 February 2010 - 09:15 PM' timestamp='1266376543' post='2186844']
No doubt, but they take advantage of it within limits. A 20K NS Nation has a small window of nations that can declare on it. The nations in that window are usually not flush with wonders.




(Edit: added the K to 20)
[/quote]
Well that depends on how many top tier nations you knock down/sell infra to get into your range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='delendum' date='16 February 2010 - 10:15 PM' timestamp='1266376503' post='2186840']
Please point me to the treaty TOP honored by declaring on us.
[/quote]

I wasn't talking about that.

[quote name='kevin32891' date='16 February 2010 - 10:11 PM' timestamp='1266376283' post='2186827']
I wasn't referring IRON/TOP hitting C&G, I was talking about even if IRON came to help its allies ( who were involved in war against SF) C&G would have declared anyway. I hope that we're both on the same page now.
[/quote]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='16 February 2010 - 09:06 PM' timestamp='1266375987' post='2186805']
I do believe Crymson and Peron have the same logs. Why have they not posted them?
[/quote]

This is a pretty good metaphor of sorts for where our world of nations, alliances and blocs are with this war. Thousands of nations engaged from the core to the periphery are waiting for one of 3 or 4 leaders to blink.

Meanwhile, here we sit and watch more or less helplessly as they continue to puff their chests at each other in the most tragically stupid staring match in Planet Bob's history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Denial' date='16 February 2010 - 10:17 PM' timestamp='1266376672' post='2186852']
As Bob/Penlugue Solaris alluded to, do you really think Archon is witholding the logs for any other reason than the 'class' you attributed to Crymson and Peron?
[/quote]
I don't know how Archon works. But, he is classy for not posting the logs. But, making a thread about the logs is unclassy. In this case the unclassy out weighs the classy

[quote name='Chickenzilla' date='16 February 2010 - 10:18 PM' timestamp='1266376713' post='2186857']
Soooooooooooo.
You're saying that Archon is right in not posting the logs then?
[/quote]
Yes, I am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Earogema' date='17 February 2010 - 12:54 PM' timestamp='1266375272' post='2186767']
I did address your point then. I'll reiterate-

\m/, PC, and FOK had no idea TOP was going to attack. These were 3 of the 4 people who could have contacted TOP about the result of the talks. They did not because they knew not that TOP/IRON were going to attack. [/quote]
Sorry, I realised where we are talking at cross purposes - my post wasn't addressing any of those alliances, it was addressed to the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='16 February 2010 - 09:24 PM' timestamp='1266377051' post='2186877']
Sorry, I realised where we are talking at cross purposes - my post wasn't addressing any of those alliances, it was addressed to the OP.
[/quote]
Oh I get what you're saying now- That Archon should have told TOP/IRON.

Eh, I suppose you have a point then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Believland' date='17 February 2010 - 12:53 PM' timestamp='1266377013' post='2186876']
I don't know how Archon works. But, he is classy for not posting the logs. But, making a thread about the logs is unclassy. In this case the unclassy out weighs the classy[/quote]
Do you use some sort of digital weight scale for level of class, or are you just that talented that you can make these judgements on the fly now? Quite frankly, to state that this topic was solely regarding the informal talk Archon held with Crymson and Peron is either a gross misunderstanding of the topic content or blatant misrepresentation. The primary goal of this topic for Complaints & Grievances was to dispel many rumours floating around - such as those spread by people talking out of their $@! regarding supposed surrender terms - and to present our case in one central topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Earogema' date='17 February 2010 - 01:25 PM' timestamp='1266377137' post='2186883']
Oh I get what you're saying now- That Archon should have told TOP/IRON.

Eh, I suppose you have a point then.
[/quote]
Or Grub could have, seeing that he was arguably better informed and placed to do so than Archon was. If he had been genuinely interested in de-escalating of the war, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='16 February 2010 - 09:06 PM' timestamp='1266375987' post='2186805']
I do believe Crymson and Peron have the same logs. Why have they not posted them?
[/quote]

i'd actually like to see them. might be interesting.

[quote name='Denial' date='16 February 2010 - 09:07 PM' timestamp='1266376056' post='2186813']
No, Archon stated that C&G would enter against TOP and IRON if they attacked one of our allies. That is like saying water is wet, the sky is blue, IRON posters are hopeless, or Bob Janova is a hypocrite. It should be no surprise to anyone that Complaints & Grievances would defend any ally that found itself a victim of aggression.

Now, I will hit you with some knowledge. Your argument is a half-assed paraphrase of what Bob Janova is spewing over the forums and other media. It completely fails to stand up against scrutiny:

1. Crymson, whilst in leadership, famously stated that TOP & co were taking this opportunity to "bloody up" Complaints & Grievances, in a time where we were perceived to be most vulnerable, because they saw us as a threat.
2. Crymson and other senior TOP members have also stated that they sought to continue this war against C&G until they no longer considered us a threat.
3. TOP only ever became interested in white peace the moment they saw the odds were against them.
4. Why, exactly, would we accept white peace after we've been aggressively attacked for absolutely no reason, by a bunch of conniving, underhanded miscreants?

Thus, if we hypothetically accept your argument of "strategy" and "removing a threat" as a valid case for initiating or continuing a war, then Complaints & Grievances extending this war should be just as acceptable in your eyes as TOP & IRON initiating it. If not more acceptable, considering TOP & IRON clearly displayed their capacity as a threat to C&G, whereas TOP & IRON only had a 'belief' (Crymson's own term) that we were a threat because we said bad things in public about them now and then.

I look forward to your next post supporting Complaints & Grievances defending themselves against senseless aggression. Otherwise, you might just be guilty of holding double standards! [img]http://thecastlehall.com/boards/Smileys/kickass/eng101.gif[/img]
[/quote]

i'll actually step up and say that i'm ignorant to talk like that, being the "hey, lets declare on CnG alliances just to bloody them up". i'm not gov and the reason i fight is in support of TORN and her allies, i'll continue fighting till everyone has seen peace. i also dont have any ill-feelings towards any CnG members. this is just business and after the war i dont see why there couldnt be better communication. as i'm aware, TOP/friends entered pre-emptively expecting the original war to escalate, so why not attempt siezing the upper hand? archon did say earlier in this thread that they hadnt decided whether they would step in or not. it's getting late for me and my post are going to be "quarter-assed" so i'm not going to try replying to your entire post. i'm honestly getting tired of this whole debate because it does not matter. this war should technically be long over with but hey, i like a good fight and havent had one in a long time.

[quote name='delendum' date='16 February 2010 - 09:15 PM' timestamp='1266376503' post='2186840']
The truth is different depending on who you ask - which is the whole purpose behind making your side of the story available for all. People can read both opinions and make their own conclusions. You are welcome to state yours just as we have.
[/quote]

that's basically what peron's post was doing. apparently he didnt feel the need to make another thread when archon already has(which is convenient, better than searching the forums). since someone mentioned the OP referring to the rumors of peace talks... if TOP/friends leaders say they probably won't accept anything other than white peace, what harm would it do to throw back a rough draft of sorts on what you'd be willing to accept?

Edited by President Sitruk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='delendum' date='17 February 2010 - 04:15 AM' timestamp='1266376503' post='2186840']We haven't thought of any terms yet. Quite simply, no propositions exist at this point, not even on paper.
[/quote]

So you got involved in peace-talks, being in a position of strength, without even having thought about terms? I am sorry to say that it sound kind of un-likely! or if true really... lets just say unprepared.

But lets humour the thought of C&G being that unprepared. You will not offer white peace and you dont have any idea of what kind of terms you will offer. What is your strategy then and please dont say just defend yourself since it is clear that you are winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Believland' date='17 February 2010 - 03:16 AM' timestamp='1266376562' post='2186846']
No. I don't think I did. But, you know much more about my thoughts than I do. Maybe your interpretation skills work as well as Archon's.

I have never stated that Archon is "the monster" for not posting them. If anything he is "the monster" for making a pointless thread about the logs.
[/quote]

So what you're basically saying is that your main problem is with the thread being pointless? If so, what's there to argue about?

[quote name='kevin32891' date='17 February 2010 - 03:18 AM' timestamp='1266376700' post='2186856']
I wasn't talking about that.
[/quote]

Right.

What treaties we would end up having to honor is really not our choice, it's in the hands of the people who attack our treaty partners. We didn't ask for this war, we didn't ask for the escalation, there is no way you can blame us for where our treaties would have taken us.

However, it's one thing to follow the treaties and find yourself opposing somebody, and it's completely different to go "hey MK we want to smash your face in anyway, we'll just skip a few steps and declare on you now because you look like you are in a weak spot, and we don't really care about the war itself as much as we see you as a threat and want to bloody you up."

TOP saw an opportunity and went for something they already wanted to do. Which is fine with me, I just don't understand why you are trying to paint it as something else.

[quote name='kevin32891' date='17 February 2010 - 03:20 AM' timestamp='1266376849' post='2186868']
They based it off good faith, hopefully TOP and IRON have learned their lesson.
[/quote]

If you want to tell us your side of the story, we'll listen. Don't get upset when we draw our own conclusions though. You are free to share your point of view as well, where exactly is the issue?

[quote name='Believland' date='17 February 2010 - 03:23 AM' timestamp='1266377013' post='2186876']
I don't know how Archon works. But, he is classy for not posting the logs. But, making a thread about the logs is unclassy. In this case the unclassy out weighs the classy


Yes, I am.
[/quote]

What is it with those logs, really, it's like we're talking about a dead body you didn't want to be discovered. That conversation existed, we drew some conclusions, and made them known. If you don't like our conclusions, feel free to post your own and let the world decide what it choses to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='neneko' date='17 February 2010 - 07:34 AM' 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]
Hey, dont ruin the suprise ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Earogema' date='16 February 2010 - 09:25 PM' timestamp='1266377137' post='2186883']
Oh I get what you're saying now- That Archon should have told TOP/IRON.

Eh, I suppose you have a point then.
[/quote]

A few posts back, but sorry, we now know \m/ knew ahead of time that TOP planned to attack C&G. The leaker came forward and even CSM acknowledges its truth.

So, Umar and you are not speaking at cross purposes after all. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Denial' date='16 February 2010 - 09:07 PM' timestamp='1266376056' post='2186813']
No, Archon stated that C&G would enter against TOP and IRON if they attacked one of our allies. That is like saying water is wet, the sky is blue, IRON posters are hopeless, or Bob Janova is a hypocrite. It should be no surprise to anyone that Complaints & Grievances would defend any ally that found itself a victim of aggression.

Now, I will hit you with some knowledge. Your argument is a half-assed paraphrase of what Bob Janova is spewing over the forums and other media. It completely fails to stand up against scrutiny:

1. Crymson, whilst in leadership, famously stated that TOP & co were taking this opportunity to "bloody up" Complaints & Grievances, in a time where we were perceived to be most vulnerable, because they saw us as a threat.
2. Crymson and other senior TOP members have also stated that they sought to continue this war against C&G until they no longer considered us a threat.
3. TOP only ever became interested in white peace the moment they saw the odds were against them.
4. Why, exactly, would we accept white peace after we've been aggressively attacked for absolutely no reason, by a bunch of conniving, underhanded miscreants?

Thus, if we hypothetically accept your argument of "strategy" and "removing a threat" as a valid case for initiating or continuing a war, then Complaints & Grievances extending this war should be just as acceptable in your eyes as TOP & IRON initiating it. If not more acceptable, considering TOP & IRON clearly displayed their capacity as a threat to C&G, whereas TOP & IRON only had a 'belief' (Crymson's own term) that we were a threat because we said bad things in public about them now and then.

I look forward to your next post supporting Complaints & Grievances defending themselves against senseless aggression. Otherwise, you might just be guilty of holding double standards! [img]http://thecastlehall.com/boards/Smileys/kickass/eng101.gif[/img]
[/quote]

while i get and understand the reasoning behind CnG's continuance of this war as well as the lack of wanting to give white peace now and possibly not in the future, i must say that it is hypocritical to state that TOP/IRON are in the wrong and/or paranoid at seeing CnG as a threat when the only threat CnG was would be due to treaty obligations but not see how it is wrong that CnG is becoming the paranoid bloc by stating that TOP/IRON are a future threat and will be rebuilding if given peace (not saying white peace) just to hit CnG again later down the road.

if one is true, then the other is certainly true just as your logic of "if TOP/IRON are in the right to preemptively strike CnG due to being a threat to TOP/IRON, then CnG is right in continuing the war due to TOP/IRON being a threat." it works both ways.

so if CnG feels they are right for practicing what could very well be paranoia, then TOP/IRON has to be right for practicing their own paranoia. If TOP/IRON are wrong, then so is CnG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='GoddessOfLinn' date='17 February 2010 - 03:45 AM' timestamp='1266378356' post='2186937']
So you got involved in peace-talks, being in a position of strength, without even having thought about terms? I am sorry to say that it sound kind of un-likely! or if true really... lets just say unprepared.

But lets humour the thought of C&G being that unprepared. You will not offer white peace and you dont have any idea of what kind of terms you will offer. What is your strategy then and please dont say just defend yourself since it is clear that you are winning.
[/quote]

We were told, out of their own initiative (that means we didn't go for any peace talks, they just informed us), that they aren't likely to accept anything but white peace. As we are unprepared to even consider offering white peace at this point, we just didn't bother with it.

We will not offer white peace because this battle is not won. Our strategy is very simple, in fact, I can sum it up in 3 words: Stand and fight. You attacked us, what, we should just say "oh hey guys it looks like we're winning, here, have white peace while you've still got your infra, better luck next time".

I'm sorry friend, MK just isn't into "turning the other cheek". If you want to bloody us up, we'll bloody you up in return to the best of our ability.

Edited by delendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Fantastico' date='16 February 2010 - 09:50 PM' timestamp='1266378624' post='2186951']
A few posts back, but sorry, we now know \m/ knew ahead of time that TOP planned to attack C&G. The leaker came forward and even CSM acknowledges its truth.

So, Umar and you are not speaking at cross purposes after all. ;)
[/quote]
Please point me to that.

I was in \m/'s private channel at the time peace was agreed to, before the announcement. We had accepted peace and [i]then[/i] Archon told us to move toward peace so that he would be able to move against TOP. I myself stated that we should not accept peace and keep fighting and was very against any offer of peace.

Even if this was so, \m/ had no agenda against TOP. Honestly we don't care about them. PC does though- because they attacked their allies. And yeah, \m/ attacked a 30 man AA for no reason, so I really don't think we wanted peace rather than escalation. :smug:

EDIT: Saber got it below me.

Edited by Earogema
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='17 February 2010 - 03:35 AM' timestamp='1266374159' post='2186733']
I disagree that such communication couldn't have been made and your response doesn't really address the point of my post.

I'll reiterate - regardless as to whether the negotiations were underway or had been concluded, anyone with the knowledge of the impending attack (regardless of whether it was as a result of OPSEC rumours or direct contact with the attackers), with the knowledge that negotiations for peace were definitely underway and having a genuine interest in avoiding the escalation of this war should have made contact with TOP and co. to inform them of the situation to at least try to stall or stand down the attack. [/quote]
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79467&view=findpost&p=2151083

Chief Savage Man was informed by Jyrinx of STA that TOP and IRON will fight against them. You can read his post to Chief Savage in that thread (although I don't get what possessed him to admit to sending that PM).

Also Chief Savage Man in the same thread that he peaced out because the larger picture was explained to him.

Your post is hence very true. If there was wish for real peace it could have been achieved several times. However it was not, instead immediate propaganda was aimed at breaking up our coalition and isolating several key alliances. For what goal is clear to anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...