Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='17 February 2010 - 06:48 PM' timestamp='1266454080' post='2188406']
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?
[/quote]

Christ almighty. I'm not saying TOP/friends aren't the agressors. I'm saying the war is to the point where TOP/friends aren't on the offensive anymore. How is that so hard to understand?

edit:typo

Edited February 18, 2010 by President Sitruk

[joracy]

[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]

Well thats true, CnG is "on the offensive" I guess, because we have more ingame declarations on them then they do on us if you want to play with definitions. I don't think that really matters one way or another. they have more guys in nuclear anarchy/peacemode then we do, so we are declaring on them instead of vice-versa. It doesn't mean much more than that.

Edited February 18, 2010 by joracy

[Krack]

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='17 February 2010 - 06:48 PM' timestamp='1266454080' post='2188406']
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?
[/quote]

I think it means TOP is the most aggressive alliance of all time since they've only won wars. Well ... up until now, but you get my point.

[Chief Savage Man]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='17 February 2010 - 07:49 PM' timestamp='1266454151' post='2188410']
Christ almight. I'm not saying TOP/friends aren't the agressors. I'm saying the war is to the point where TOP/friends aren't on the offensive anymore. How is that so hard to understand?
[/quote]

You used a word that means one thing 99.99% of the time and then said it means something else. Excuse us for being confused.

[Banksy]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='18 February 2010 - 12:25 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]
No- this is a defensive war for C&G. We were attacked. We are defending. The tables have since turned, but that is irrelevant. No one in C&G is advocating 0 tech for TOP et al. As for the final sentence- why would we submit a rough draft when TOP has made it perfectly clear to us that they will only accept White Peace or Eternal war? If TOP and co. change their mind- then we would, of course, talk terms.

[Denial]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 09:17 AM' 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]
So, pretty much the most ineffectual document ever signed. No thanks.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 09:17 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]
What in the hell type of logic is that? You think if we were to agree to peace tomorrow - which would have to be a white peace, as TOP are currently not interested in actually taking responsibility for their mistakes - then it would guarantee that TOP would never consider such an underhanded move against Complaints & Grievances in the future? How is turning around after being punched in the back of the head and saying "oh, that's cool, I forgive you" and then carry on walking with your back turned any sort of prudent decision? I sincerely hope you never rise to any position of importance within Viridian Entente, because they will surely pay a terrible price almost immediately.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 09:17 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]
If they entered the war as part of the Polar Coalition, they would have declared war against alliances that [i]were actually involved in the war against the Polar Coalition in any way, shape or form.[/i]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 09:17 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),[/quote]
No, sorry, you cannot put words in our mouths. We have stated that we would defend our allies if any were victims of aggression. Yes, we honour our treaties; this should really go without saying. Unless TOP & IRON were going to directly hit one of our allies, they had no C&G counter to worry themselves about.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 09:17 AM' timestamp='1266450441' post='2188297']
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]
Wait, what in the !@#$@#$ world are you even talking about?

Edited February 18, 2010 by Denial

[MadScotII]

[quote name='jamesdanaher' date='18 February 2010 - 12:55 AM' timestamp='1266454501' post='2188425']
No- this is a defensive war for C&G. We were attacked. We are defending. The tables have since turned, but that is irrelevant. No one in C&G is advocating 0 tech for TOP et al. As for the final sentence- why would we submit a rough draft when TOP has made it perfectly clear to us that they will only accept White Peace or Eternal war? If TOP and co. change their mind- then we would, of course, talk terms.
[/quote]


Actually it is only defensive when you don't have the upper hand. Once you have the upper hand you no longer defending your alliance(s) but actually aggressively hitting your enemy.

Why don't people get that? It really isn't a hard concept to understand. Really it isn't!

Edited February 18, 2010 by MadScotsman

[Denial]

[quote name='MadScotsman' date='18 February 2010 - 10:29 AM' timestamp='1266454748' post='2188431']
Actually it is only defensive when you don't have the upper hand. Once you have the upper hand you no longer defending your alliance(s) but actually aggressively hitting your enemy.

Why don't people get that? It really isn't a hard concept to understand. Really it isn't!
[/quote]
No, that's not actually how the terms "aggressors" and "defenders" are used in the Cyberverse. At all.

[MadScotII]

[quote name='Denial' date='18 February 2010 - 01:01 AM' timestamp='1266454873' post='2188435']
No, that's not actually how the terms "aggressors" and "defenders" are used in the Cyberverse. At all.
[/quote]

Agressors/Defenders and Aggressive/Defensive are two very different things. That's not a hard concept to understand either

Edited February 18, 2010 by MadScotsman

[Scorbolt]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='17 February 2010 - 04:47 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]

Okay, that might be agreeable on some level if all of TOPs treaties are suspended for a year. I am confident that they would consider even their entry to this war as mandated by their treaty with IRON so it solves - well nothing.

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' date='17 February 2010 - 06:50 PM' timestamp='1266454230' post='2188418']
You used a word that means one thing 99.99% of the time and then said it means something else. Excuse us for being confused.
[/quote]

being an agressor and being on the offense/defense are two completely different things.

you guys are turning this into way more than what it was meant to be. i was just referring to Archon's statement that CnG is fighting a defensive war but TOP/friends quickly found that they were the ones on the defensive shortly after certain events took place. If TOP/friends were truely on the offense, you'd find a lot more out of PM and actively out finding targets. Instead, you see many in PM or if they're staggered correctly(like myself, lol), then they're doing what they can to keep their head above water.

now, i had another question that wasnt directed to archon(but he responded to only one part of my post). what are the irrepairable damages that TOP/friend's inflicted when they attacked?

[MadScotII]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='18 February 2010 - 01:09 AM' timestamp='1266455346' post='2188456']
being an agressor and being on the offense/defense are two completely different things.

you guys are turning this into way more than what it was meant to be. i was just referring to Archon's statement that CnG is fighting a defensive war but TOP/friends quickly found that they were the ones on the defensive shortly after certain events took place. If TOP/friends were truely on the offense, you'd find a lot more out of PM and actively out finding targets. Instead, you see many in PM or if they're staggered correctly(like myself, lol), then they're doing what they can to keep their head above water.

now, i had another question that wasnt directed to archon(but he responded to only one part of my post). what are the irrepairable damages that TOP/friend's inflicted when they attacked?
[/quote]

Thank god, it's not just me that understands basic concepts like this.

[Denial]

[quote name='MadScotsman' date='18 February 2010 - 10:35 AM' timestamp='1266455111' post='2188443']
Agressors/Defenders and Aggressive/Defensive are two very different things. That's not a hard concept to understand either
[/quote]
You stated that a conflict can only be defensive for an alliance, and thus be involved in the act of defending your alliance, when you do not possess the upper hand. That is incorrect. An alliance or bloc remains the defenders in the conflict indefinitely. Which side is the aggressor and which is the defender is determined by the manner in which the conflict initiated. In this case, TOP & IRON attacked an entirely uninvolved bloc without reason or provocation, and are therefore the aggressors for the entirety of the conflict. If the defender obtains the upper hand in the conflict after some period of fighting, as C&G have, they still remain the defender, yet it can be argued that they are going on the "offensive" to push TOP & IRON soldiers and tanks out of their territories, and regain and solidify the sovereignty that was grossly infringed upon by the aggressors.

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='Denial' date='17 February 2010 - 07:40 PM' timestamp='1266457259' post='2188536']
You stated that a conflict can only be defensive for an alliance, and thus be involved in the act of defending your alliance, when you do not possess the upper hand. That is incorrect. An alliance or bloc remains the defenders in the conflict indefinitely. Which side is the aggressor and which is the defender is determined by the manner in which the conflict initiated. In this case, TOP & IRON attacked an entirely uninvolved bloc without reason or provocation, and are therefore the aggressors for the entirety of the conflict. If the defender obtains the upper hand in the conflict after some period of fighting, as C&G have, they still remain the defender, yet it can be argued that they are going on the "offensive" to push TOP & IRON soldiers and tanks out of their territories, and regain and solidify the sovereignty that was grossly infringed upon by the aggressors.
[/quote]

it doesnt happen only when one side has more NS than the other or anything and an entinty isnt on the offense for the entirety of a conflict. they're the aggressor, yes, but not always on the offense. but the tide has certainly been turned and i've already explained why this war has gone from offensive to defensive for TOP/friends.

Edited February 18, 2010 by President Sitruk

[Chief Savage Man]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='17 February 2010 - 08:45 PM' timestamp='1266457519' post='2188544']
i don't believe it happens only when one side has more NS than the other or anything and i also don't believe that an entinty is on the offense for the entirety of a conflict. they're the aggressor, yes, but not always on the offense. but the tide has certainly been turned and i've already explained why this war has gone from offensive to defensive for TOP/friends.
[/quote]

I'm going to humor you and say you're right. The war is now a defensive war for TOP.

So what?

[Denial]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='18 February 2010 - 11:15 AM' timestamp='1266457519' post='2188544']
it doesnt happen only when one side has more NS than the other or anything and an entinty isnt on the offense for the entirety of a conflict. [b]they're the aggressor, yes,[/b] but not always on the offense. but the tide has certainly been turned and i've already explained why this war has gone from offensive to defensive for TOP/friends.
[/quote]
So, we are in agreement. TOP and IRON are the aggressors and Complaints & Grievances are defending themselves against that unwarranted and unjustified belligerence. Awesome.

As for C&G now gaining the upper hand and going on the offensive in order to regain and restrengthen the national sovereignty of each of our member nations, I really must echo Chief Savage Man and say... So what? That is the nature of war.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Denial

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' date='17 February 2010 - 07:48 PM' timestamp='1266457690' post='2188553']
I'm going to humor you and say you're right. The war is now a defensive war for TOP.

So what?
[/quote]

i was never trying to make it out to be some big deal, you guys were. i just said that who was on the offense and defense changed because Archon said CnG was fighting a defensive war. it's no longer defensive. end of story.

now, i wanted to but failed to respond to a CnG's post earlier in this thread. they said something along the lines of TOP/friends already said they only wanted white peace or war. false. peron said that they probably wouldnt accept anything but at the time. either way, if CnG were truely interested in ending this war, i'd think they'd have some sort of first offer for TOP/friends. i doubt that's the case though because it seems they want this war just as much as TOP/friends did.

[MadScotII]

[quote name='Denial' date='18 February 2010 - 01:40 AM' timestamp='1266457259' post='2188536']
remain the defender, yet it can be argued that they are going on the "offensive" [b]to push TOP & IRON soldiers and tanks out of their territories, and regain and solidify the sovereignty that was grossly infringed upon by the aggressors.[/b]
[/quote]

You guys really going to roll with BS like that. Do they teach this stuff to you before you can become a member of what ever alliance your are in? That is done as soon as you retaliate by ground attacking... either that or I lost land while being the aggressor

Edited February 18, 2010 by MadScotsman

[ConeBone69]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='17 February 2010 - 08:57 PM' timestamp='1266458274' post='2188572']
i was never trying to make it out to be some big deal, you guys were. i just said that who was on the offense and defense changed because Archon said CnG was fighting a defensive war. it's no longer defensive. end of story.
[/quote]
I get what you're saying, but the way you are saying it ignore the initial reality.

Lets play a Mad Lib:
If TOP is the [u]aggressor[/u] (your own words) in this war, then CnG is the [u]________[/u] in this war.

Edit: I really can't believe this is being argued as if it really matters. TOP are the bad guys, we are the good guys. We are punishing the bad guys after they bit off more than they can chew. Fin.

Edited February 18, 2010 by ConeBone69

[Bob]

[quote name='MadScotsman' date='17 February 2010 - 08:58 PM' timestamp='1266458330' post='2188573']
You guys really going to roll with BS like that. Do they teach this stuff to you before you can become a member of what ever alliance your are in? That is done as soon as you retaliate by ground attacking... either that or I lost land while being the aggressor
[/quote]
The aggressor can lose land, I don't think there's anything against that. Just means it doesn't work out in your favor doesn't mean you didn't start the war.

I have no idea what the actual discussion is, but damn are you upset.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[James Wilson]

In situation's like this, how on earth can you demand white peace?

[MadScotII]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='18 February 2010 - 02:02 AM' timestamp='1266458520' post='2188578']
The aggressor can lose land, I don't think there's anything against that. Just means it doesn't work out in your favor doesn't mean you didn't start the war.

I have no idea what the actual discussion is, but damn are you upset.
[/quote]

You are correct, the correct words I should have used was "on the offensive"

Nah not upset at all. This war no longer has anything to do with me. Apart from I clap my hands to TOP for being the first alliance in my time here where I have actually thought, cool a CB with no BS in it. Although this does not mean I support the reason, but lets be honest, honesty on Planet Bob is hard to come by, especially when it coming from Alliance Leadership, I doubt there is many honest ones out there, if any.

Edited February 18, 2010 by MadScotsman

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='ConeBone69' date='17 February 2010 - 08:01 PM' timestamp='1266458507' post='2188577']
I get what you're saying, but the way you are saying it ignore the initial reality.

Lets play a Mad Lib:
If TOP is the [u]aggressor[/u] (your own words) in this war, then CnG is the [u]________[/u] in this war.

Edit: I really can't believe this is being argued as if it really matters. TOP are the bad guys, we are the good guys. We are punishing the bad guys after they bit off more than they can chew. Fin.
[/quote]

playing mad lib(whatever that is, heh) i would just put it as TOP went on the offensive and was the aggressor in starting the war. CnG has since been able to turn the tide and go on the offense and put TOP on the defense. does that work?

at least you understand and i know, the play on words is getting to me lol. i never meant for it to turn into an argument, i was just responding to one of Archon's comments.

Edited February 18, 2010 by President Sitruk

[Bob Janova]

Obviously it's an aggressive entry by TOP/IRON. That doesn't give C&G carte blanche to roll them indefinitely claiming 'oh but it's just defensive'.

Denial, you're just laughable, seriously. Your big words don't impress anyone who isn't already taken in by the C&G line. All you need to do to 'regain your national sovereignty' and all the other flowery phrases you pull out is to accept peace. Regarding 'what I am talking about' re C&G stepping up the push for peace so you could entrap TOP, well I believe Archon's words will do for that:
[quote]I will not deny that MK was working quite diligently to secure peace in the Polar - \m/ theater[...]. I will also note that we stepped up our efforts once we learned there was a chance of an opportunistic strike against the Complaints and Grievances Union[/quote]
The [i]only[/i] reason it makes sense to do that is to entrap TOP and IRON. If you were interested in a full peace for your allies (NpO) and avoiding war yourselves, you'd have tipped TOP and IRON off (although yes, NpO is culpable there too, of course). If you were interested in helping your allies win the war, you wouldn't have pushed them to peace there and then brought them into another damaging front later; simply [i]not[/i] pushing the peace just then, so TOP and IRON were included in the peace talks later taking place on all fronts, would have also got peace for you and your allies. Pressuring the NpO and other fronts to peace as you did only makes sense if the situation that remained – one front left live onto which you could pull more alliances to roll TOP/IRON – is the one you wanted. That's fine, I guess, but it's as cynical as TOP's decision to pre-empt you in the first place, so you can't claim the moral high ground.

[quote]I am confident that they would consider even their entry to this war as mandated by their treaty with IRON so it solves - well nothing.[/quote]
I doubt you can find any quotes of TOPpers suggesting that. It's pretty clearly not true.

[joracy]

[quote name='MadScotsman' date='17 February 2010 - 08:58 PM' timestamp='1266458330' post='2188573']
You guys really going to roll with BS like that. Do they teach this stuff to you before you can become a member of what ever alliance your are in? That is done as soon as you retaliate by ground attacking... either that or I lost land while being the aggressor
[/quote]

I see. If you get attacked, and defend yourself, you are the aggressor. Cool. This is such a worthless game of a semantics. It's stupid even for the OWF.