Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='18 February 2010 - 04:22 AM' timestamp='1266430957' post='2187729']
The very moment TOP and IRON decided to go caveman and declared on CnG with no attemp at mediation, [b]no Casus Belli[/b], and with no motivation other than doing maximun damage to them... they stopped being a "future threat" and became an actual, present, real threat.
[/quote]
No reason for war? Their reasons for war are quite clearly stated. Read the declaration of war again.

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='18 February 2010 - 05:45 AM' timestamp='1266435938' post='2187821']
CnG leaders went for a bit more complex strategy, more related to delaying the conflict and deactivating it from exploding if possible.
[/quote]
See my post [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80942&view=findpost&p=2186502"]here[/url] for why this is patently false.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='17 February 2010 - 01:45 PM' timestamp='1266435938' post='2187821']
The point lies in the fac that, before the conflict, we all were judging [i][b]intentions[/b][/i], wich are [u]subjective[/u]. But, after the conflict, we are now judging [i][b]actions[/b][/i], wich are [u]objective[/u].

[b]Before this conflict[/b], TOP/IRON perceived CnG as a "future threat", in the sense that the growing rivalry between the two blocs could lead to a Global War. I suppose that CnG, too, perceived TOP/IRON as a "future threat".

However, those perception were, ultimately, [b]subjective perceptions[/b]. The Global War was an hypothetical scenario that was not necessary to become real, no matter how many people (me among them) took it for granted.

There was a difference in what kind of actions did each bloc take to deactivate the, then [b]subjective[/b], "threat". By reading what the TOPs wrote, we may come to the conclusion that they were confindent in their superior technology and allegedly larger warchests giving them the edge on an eventual conflict. So TOP/IRON leaders decided to take the caveman approach; grab the clubs, rally as many buddies as possible, wait for the enemy to show an opening, and then strike hard, and strike hard, and strike hard, then ask, and strike hard a bit more.

CnG leaders went for a bit more complex strategy, more related to delaying the conflict and deactivating it from exploding if possible. Was this because they are not as ruthless as their rivals? or only because they thought themselves weaker? We can only make speculations here. Speculations that, ultimately, will be [b]subjective[/b].

The only [b]objective[/b] reality we have now is that one side went, ultimately, for the totally ruthless approach: blunt, open war. And the other side did not.

[b]After the conflict has blown up[/b], the meaning of the "future threat" has changed. For CnG, TOP/IRON are not "future", hypotetical threats anymore. Since they attacked openly and en masse, they are threats [b]now[/b], they are for real. The "future threat" is no longer a subjective perception. It's now an [b]objective perception[/b], based on real actions.

..

So, TOP and IRON came to the conclusion they had to beat CnG, based on subjective perceptions. CnG is coming to the conclusion that they have to beat TOP/IRON*, based on objective actions. And that's an important difference, from my point of view.

*(please note that since I'm not in touch with anyone from CnG, my words can't be taken as any kind of "proof" about their stance. I just make assumptions from what I read, like everyone else)

[i]PD: I bet someone will rebute me with some crap relativistic philosophical essay about the impossibility of an objective truth and it all being subjective.[/i]
[/quote]

hmm.... i stated that TOP/IRON are current threats just as you did. the position you are trying to make in a round about way is that CnG still considers them a future threat (there is no way this definition can be changed as future does not in any way mean present or current). thus, there is still no objective way to define TOP/IRON as a future threat regardless of their actions in the present. there is only a subjective way to define TOP/IRON as a future threat.

so you did not refute anything i posted and you have misused the definition of future in trying to make future=current. if you were going for them being a current threat thus they must be a future threat, that is in no way an objective viewpoint as since no one can predict the future, almost anything dealing with the future is subjective.

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='lebubu' date='17 February 2010 - 07:29 PM' timestamp='1266431368' post='2187732']
But you see, by defending ourselves and not ending the war on their terms, we're proving that they actually had every reason to consider us a threat! We've become the monster we once fought.
[/quote]

You are the Hegemony.

They are the Hegemony.

I'm the Hegemony.

And so's my wife!

Don't grumble, give a whistle, and... [i]Always look on the bright side of life...[/i] [img]http://i560.photobucket.com/albums/ss49/aos_images/smilies/smiley20whistling.gif[/img]

Edited February 17, 2010 by Krashnaia

[Heft]

It's been quite awhile since I've seen a single word run so far down into the ground as the word "threat" has been here. There seem to be two basic and distinct meanings of it being used here, and most of the disagreement comes from either not recognizing or ignoring which use is being employed at a given time.

There's the indefinite, future threat that TOP seems to have believed CnG to likely be, and then there is the imminent, current threat that TOP believed CnG to assuredly be.

The first was due to the posturing and lack of understanding on both sides that had gone on for months. The second was due to the fact that once IRON entered the war in defense of their treaty partners (us) then CnG would have been guaranteed to enter the war in some fashion, thus ensuring a military confrontation between the "TIFDTT" (or whatever) group and CnG, regardless of entry point.

The first "threat" may have led to distrust and hostility, but it was the second "threat" that led to the attacks. At least, as I understand it.

This dialogue would make a whole lot more sense if everyone stopped conflating these two concepts.

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='17 February 2010 - 10:00 PM' timestamp='1266440404' post='2187947']
hmm.... i stated that TOP/IRON are current threats just as you did. the position you are trying to make in a round about way is that CnG still considers them a future threat (there is no way this definition can be changed as future does not in any way mean present or current). thus, there is still no objective way to define TOP/IRON as a future threat regardless of their actions in the present. there is only a subjective way to define TOP/IRON as a future threat.

so you did not refute anything i posted and you have misused the definition of future in trying to make future=current. if you were going for them being a current threat thus they must be a future threat, that is in no way an objective viewpoint as since no one can predict the future, almost anything dealing with the future is subjective.
[/quote]

A present threat will remain a threat in the future unless you deal with it. CnG has all the right to seek a guarantee that they'll not suffer further agression. A White Peace, at least in the way TOP/IRON demand it, doesn't serve this purpose.

[Lukapaka]

Interesting read, indeed.

[Bob Janova]

Refusing to give TOP/IRON peace because they might be a threat in the future is out of exactly the same stable as declaring a pre-emptive war because you might be a threat in the future, except that yours is a nebulous and ill-defined far off future threat (they might attack you again 'some time'), whereas theirs was a very likely and immediate future ('if we enter this war C&G will end up countering us').

[quote]CnG has all the right to seek a guarantee that they'll not suffer further agression[/quote]
Certainly, but grinding TOP into the dust, which is the only way to guarantee that militarily, is not the answer. I mean, grinding someone into the dust to guarantee they will not be a threat in the future is as Hegemonic as it gets. If this is what C&G want then they should impose one singular surrender term: a NAP (excepting treaty obligations).

[Scorbolt]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='17 February 2010 - 02:46 PM' timestamp='1266443192' post='2188017']
Certainly, but grinding TOP into the dust, which is the only way to guarantee that militarily, is not the answer. I mean, grinding someone into the dust to guarantee they will not be a threat in the future is as Hegemonic as it gets. If this is what C&G want then they should impose one singular surrender term: a NAP (excepting treaty obligations).
[/quote]

What is an NAP 'excepting treaty obligations' exactly? Sounds like a get out of jail free card for an agreement that they simply won't jump us out of nowhere again with a clause allowing them to ignore it for the very same excuse they used to attack us this time.

I admire your optimism Bob.

I'm sure we could agree to terms of surrender where we received reparations for their preemptive attack but that kind-of requires a surrender. One that from the posts I've seen isn't even being considered let alone forthcoming. When they tell us white peace or dust then we will continue to grind them.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Scorbolt

[Believland]

[quote name='Denial' date='16 February 2010 - 10:28 PM' timestamp='1266377323' post='2186893']
Do you use some sort of digital weight scale for level of class, or are you just that talented that you can make these judgments 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.
[/quote]
I actually get it weighed at the doctors. He always seems like a reliable source. He even told me NPO was evil. So that'd make him 1 for 1. Anyway, my Doctor's weight scale is not on question.

As much I regretted it, I did skim the topic. I expected it to be more bawwwing about how TOP hit you guys preemptively, but I guess he wanted to let the CnG members have their share.

And about the logs, I just have a problem about people sharing logs. Whether it be informal talks or formal. Unless, you have permission, of course. Maybe, you can just call me a last of a breed. I know, that if I ever log dumped, I would let the one I'm throwing under a bus ZI me. But, hey. That's just me.

[Krack]

[quote name='Scorbolt' date='17 February 2010 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1266444021' post='2188055']
What is an NAP 'excepting treaty obligations' exactly?
[/quote]

It's Bob grasping at straws trying to find some way (any way) to save his friends in TOP who are now currently going on 12 consecutive months (if not more) of diplomatic decisions and maneuvers leading to them taking a once respected alliance and running it completely into the ground. He's asking everyone to wrestle the gun away from TOP, make them promise they won't do it again, and then reload it for them and hand it back to them. It's really rather sad that we've gotten to the point where this is the best argument he can come up with.

Seriously, has TOP made more than one smart diplomatic, political or military decision in the last 12 months? The only one I can think of is that they didn't back NPO in their attack of OV. But even that one ... it appears that decision was only made because of vanity (NPO made them look like chumps by declaring in the midst of negotiations TOP was mediating) and all of the good will was tossed away almost instantly when they started threatening other Karma alliances in regards to IRON. 12 months of one bad decision after another. Frankly, I'm sick of people apologizing for them.

[Believland]

If we're going to talk about "good" FA moves. You should take a look at your friends in Athens. They have a great track record. I'm sure you know all about that though.

Also, god forbid trying to get your allies good peace terms. They should be ashamed of themselves. They should be trying to start fights with their friends instead of trying to get them peace. Damn them. Really bro? I'm wondering if MK will be trying to get Polaris reasonable terms. And if they do make an $@! out of themselves, I'll offer encouraging words of support. And will defend their actions. There is no problem with trying to get your allies peace.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Believland

[Krack]

[quote name='Believland' date='17 February 2010 - 05:10 PM' timestamp='1266448207' post='2188220']
If we're going to talk about "good" FA moves. You should take a look at your friends in Athens. They have a great track record. I'm sure you know all about that though.
[/quote]

Hmm ...

[quote name='Krack' date='17 February 2010 - 01:11 AM' timestamp='1266390689' post='2187267']
No, not really. [b]Personally, I'm completely disinterested in Athens.[/b] I'm not treatied to them. I don't feel threatened by them. [b]And I'm not sure I've ever had a conversation with someone in their alliance.[/b] But, by all means, if you think that's a conversation everyone in Cybernations is champing at the bit to have tonight, feel free to start a new thread.

Now, how does that change the fact that TOP and IRON attacked C&G because they haven't learned anything from the Karma War? Was TOP and IRON concerned that Athens was about to dominate the entirety of Planet Bob much in the same way that the Continuum/One Vision did?
[/quote]

[Stumpy Jung Il]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='17 February 2010 - 04:46 PM' timestamp='1266443192' post='2188017']
Refusing to give TOP/IRON peace because they might be a threat in the future...[/quote]
As far as Im concerned once TOP/IRON agree to even consider paying for the damage they unjustly did (a belief that myself and many others still hold) the conflict can promptly end. I am not a proponent for continuing this war because I hold irrational fear TOP/IRON but rather because I believe they deserve to pay for their very foolish decision and the irreparable damage they have done to several alliances out of paranoia. Just my opinion though.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Stumpy Jung Il

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='17 February 2010 - 10:46 PM' timestamp='1266443192' post='2188017']
Refusing to give TOP/IRON peace because they might be a threat in the future is out of exactly the same stable as declaring a pre-emptive war because you might be a threat in the future, except that yours is a nebulous and ill-defined far off future threat (they might attack you again 'some time'), whereas theirs was a very likely and immediate future ('if we enter this war C&G will end up countering us').[/quote]

No, because:

1) TOP/IRON aren't an hypotetical threat in the future. They are an actual threat, now, since they actually [u]attacked[/u] CnG.

2) Nobody forced TOP/IRON to declare war on CnG, while CnG has been forced to be at war with them. It's also beyond doubt, at this point, that TOP/IRON couldn't care less about the ongoing NpO-\m/ conflict. They just saw an opportunity they could take advantage of, and jumped in to advance their agendas, without even caring to build up a Casus Belli.

3) Taking into consideration that CnG has some ties with NpO (ties that have led the NpO to actually DoW TOP), it's not that clear that CnG were "inevitably" going to jump into the NpO-\m/ war. Rather, I'm more inclined to belive that CnG was willing to end that conflict as soon as possible. Like, in fact, happened, as NpO-\m/ had very much agreed on peace terms when TOP/IRON launched their war of agression.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='17 February 2010 - 10:46 PM' timestamp='1266443192' post='2188017']Certainly, but grinding TOP into the dust, which is the only way to guarantee that militarily, is not the answer. I mean, grinding someone into the dust to guarantee they will not be a threat in the future is as Hegemonic as it gets. If this is what C&G want then they should impose one singular surrender term: a NAP (excepting treaty obligations).[/quote]

The fact that TOP/IRON can't comprehend any other solution for a rivalry than complete anihilation of the enemy, doesn't mean such other options aren't out there.

It's difficult, through, that an alternative to destroying the enemy can be found, when the agressors show no remorse for their actions, other than regret for having failed to score a critical blow on CnG. Neither show no willing to reach an understanding, much on the contrary they brag about being in a comfortable position and willing to push the war to it's ultimate consequences.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Krashnaia

[Bob Janova]

So the damage done in the first 45 minutes? I guess that would be worth talking to them about. But if you are going to try claiming billions in damages, you're just not going to get them. That's not moralising or posturing, it's just the plain truth – and I doubt the world would take kindly to it, as TOP haven't wronged the world like NPO did.

[quote]What is an NAP 'excepting treaty obligations' exactly?[/quote]
TOP agrees that it will not declare war on any signatory of C&G unless it is mandated to do so by treaty. It's quite a simple concept really

As for good political decisions, the last 12 months contains only three major events: Karma, the TPF non-war, and this one. TOP score 2 out of 3 (1½ if you're being uncharitable about Karma). C&G didn't score well on the TPF incident and only score at most a half point for this incident so really, the scores are even on that one.

Edit: Congratulations Krashnaia, you completely missed the difference between a present threat and the refusal to give peace because of the worry about a future threat. Claiming you have to keep TOP and IRON at war because they're a threat [i]now[/i] is self-evidently non-sensical: if peace were agreed tomorrow, you would no longer be current active threat to each other.

Your point 2 has been countered by TOPpers, and is just not true (TOP/IRON did enter as part of the Polar coalition and would not have entered had peace been declared). Your point 3 is countered by the OP of this very thread, and several other MK posts, where it's stated that C&G would 'defend their allies' (i.e. they would inevitably have joined the war), and that they knew of TOP/IRON's incoming attack and did not inform them of the peace they rushed through as a result (i.e. they were not interested in peace, just a tactical redeployment of the other fronts).

Edited February 17, 2010 by Bob Janova

[Krack]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='17 February 2010 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1266450441' post='2188297']
TOP agrees that it will not declare war on any signatory of C&G unless it is mandated to do so by treaty. It's quite a simple concept really
[/quote]

No way. Not unless they pinky-swear.

I mean, really, this is the absolute best argument you have? A non-aggression pact? Thank you, Bob, for saving our side from months of our lower tier fighting with TOP until TOP's once-impressive nations (a) go into bill lock, or (b) have to sell off everything of value to avoid bill lock, or (c) escape into peace mode and sit there accomplishing nothing.

[OOC:] For 99.99% of Cybernations players, the only thing interesting about the game is fighting in a war. You are saving them from weeks and months of actually enjoying themselves. You're quite the humanitarian.[/OOC]

Edited February 18, 2010 by Krack

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='OneBallMan' date='17 February 2010 - 09:37 AM' timestamp='1266421070' post='2187567']
You were wrong, you have wronged us and you will pay[/b]. Zero infra and zero tech should be the baseline, as far as I am concerned. I don't care who you give it to, but that's the way it rolls. Enjoy the war.
[/quote]

Aren't you guys supposed to be fighting for "justice"?

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' date='17 February 2010 - 05:28 PM' timestamp='1266449292' post='2188256']
As far as Im concerned once TOP/IRON agree to even consider paying for the damage they unjustly did (a belief that myself and many others still hold) the conflict can promptly end. I am not a proponent for continuing this war because I hold irrational fear TOP/IRON but rather because I believe they deserve to pay for their very foolish decision and the irreparable damage they have done to several alliances out of paranoia. Just my opinion though.
[/quote]

Define irrepairable. Infra? Tech?

[Archon]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='17 February 2010 - 07:13 PM' timestamp='1266452006' post='2188352']
Aren't you guys supposed to be fighting for "justice"?
[/quote]

What? We're fighting a defensive war against TIFDTT. What the hell are you talking about?

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='17 February 2010 - 06:16 PM' timestamp='1266452200' post='2188362']
What? We're fighting a defensive war against TIFDTT. What the hell are you talking about?
[/quote]

I wasn't asking you but anyways. First, I think it went from a defensive war to an offensive once the tide was turned in favor of CnG. Second, claiming that TIFDTT or whatever(really, we need a better name lol) should be reduced to zero tech and whatnot is not justified. At the most I can certainly understand CnG wanting reps but the [i][b]least[/b][/i] that you can do is write up a rough draft and offer it to TIFDTT leadership for consideration.

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 12:47 AM' timestamp='1266450441' post='2188297']So the damage done in the first 45 minutes? I guess that would be worth talking to them about. But if you are going to try claiming billions in damages, you're just not going to get them. That's not moralising or posturing, it's just the plain truth[/quote]

Well, can you provide proof that CnG is looking for billions of reps? No.

On the other side, the TOP have told quite clear that it's white peace or nothing.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 12:47 AM' timestamp='1266450441' post='2188297'] – and I doubt the world would take kindly to it, as TOP haven't wronged the world like NPO did.[/quote]

That's highly opinable.


[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 12:47 AM' timestamp='1266450441' post='2188297']
Edit: Congratulations Krashnaia, you completely missed the difference between a present threat and the refusal to give peace because of the worry about a future threat. Claiming you have to keep TOP and IRON at war because they're a threat [i]now[/i] is self-evidently non-sensical: if peace were agreed tomorrow, you would no longer be current active threat to each other.[/quote]

By declaring war in the terms they did, TOP gave material proof of their will to engage agressive war against CnG if the opportunity arises to do so with an advantage. A plain white peace tomorrow doesn't change that fact, and thus TOP remains a threat for objective reasons.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 12:47 AM' timestamp='1266450441' post='2188297']Your point 2 has been countered by TOPpers, and is just not true (TOP/IRON did enter as part of the Polar coalition and would not have entered had peace been declared). [/quote]

I don't care about what the TOPpers post [i]now[/i], when my point is proven by TOP's DoW:
[i]To our opponents: We agree with the New Polar Order's reasons for war against \m/, and we consider ourselves part of that particular side of the war. For our part, however, much our reason to enter this war lies in 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---and that, indeed, they would take advantage of any advantageous opportunity to do so. This is a war they have brought upon themselves.[/i]

Of course, TOP wouldn't have started their aggresive war if peace had been declared before between NpO and \m/, since the whole point of their strategy was to catch CnG off-balance.

BTW, if TOP entered the war as part of the NpO coalition... wich treaty they invoked to enter as part of this coallition? Because last time I checked their DoW, they invoked no treaty. And why they actually declared on people that was not at war with the NpO coalition?


[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 12:47 AM' timestamp='1266450441' post='2188297']Your point 3 is countered by the OP of this very thread, and several other MK posts, where it's stated that C&G would 'defend their allies' (i.e. they would inevitably have joined the war), and that they knew of TOP/IRON's incoming attack and did not inform them of the peace they rushed through as a result (i.e. they were not interested in peace, just a tactical redeployment of the other fronts).
[/quote]

That doesn't counter my point. CnG weren't willing to escalate the war, that's why they were not willing to enter unless further escalation made it necessary to save their allies from a curbstomp. TOP/IRON agressive action is what would have led CnG to enter the conflict, so NOT doing it would have been enought to prevent CnG from entering the war.

Your claim that CnG rushed a peace when they knew about IRON/TOP entering, pretty much proves the opposite of your predicament. The threat of further escalation paved the way to an understanding between \m/ and NpO, in order to avoid the escalation itself. It worked at New Year's Eve.

At this point, it should have been the NpO, the people TOP/IRON were supposed to be declaring in support of, who should have told them their DoW was no longer necessary.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Krashnaia

[Moridin]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='17 February 2010 - 04:25 PM' timestamp='1266452728' post='2188370']
I wasn't asking you but anyways. First, I think it went from a defensive war to an offensive once the tide was turned in favor of CnG. Second, claiming that TIFDTT or whatever(really, we need a better name lol) should be reduced to zero tech and whatnot is not justified. At the most I can certainly understand CnG wanting reps but the [i][b]least[/b][/i] that you can do is write up a rough draft and offer it to TIFDTT leadership for consideration.
[/quote]

C&G doesn't turn into the aggressor just because they're winning. I really, truly, honestly, have no idea where in the world you got that idea.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Moridin

[Virillus]

[quote name='Jamacus' date='17 February 2010 - 10:30 AM' timestamp='1266431428' post='2187733']
Except at the time they thought they had NpO on their side. It wasn't so much "evening the eventual playing field" as "taking out CnG while they were weak". NpO had \m/ well in hand and TOP/IRON could have stayed out.

That said, I'm impressed TOP/IRON had the cojones to try and take CnG out while they had the chance. Fortunately for us, they failed comically.
[/quote]


I think you and I are in complete agreeance:P

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='Moridin' date='17 February 2010 - 06:28 PM' timestamp='1266452880' post='2188374']
C&G doesn't turn into the aggressor just because they're winning. I really, truly, honestly, have no idea where in the world you got that idea.
[/quote]

There's a difference between being the agressor and being on the offense. Just because Germany was the agressor during WWII in Europe, doesn't mean they were on the offense the entire war.

[Chief Savage Man]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='17 February 2010 - 07:33 PM' timestamp='1266453223' post='2188383']
There's a difference between being the agressor and being on the offense. Just because Germany was the agressor during WWII in Europe, doesn't mean they were on the offense the entire war.
[/quote]

The terminology and conventions of Cyber Nations are extremely clear. TOP attacked first, therefore this is a defensive war for CnG no matter how badly either side gets beat up.

[Archon]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='17 February 2010 - 07:25 PM' timestamp='1266452728' post='2188370']
I wasn't asking you but anyways. First, I think it went from a defensive war to an offensive once the tide was turned in favor of CnG. Second, claiming that TIFDTT or whatever(really, we need a better name lol) should be reduced to zero tech and whatnot is not justified. At the most I can certainly understand CnG wanting reps but the [i][b]least[/b][/i] that you can do is write up a rough draft and offer it to TIFDTT leadership for consideration.
[/quote]

You asked "you guys." I'm the leader of "you guys." Thus you were asking me. Christ almighty.

Also I was completely unaware that defensive wars magically become offensive ones the moment you start winning. Does that mean I can declare war on a stronger alliance and immediately call them the aggressors?