Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[Free Quebec]

Good job Archon. Is nice to see you on the winning side.

[Heft]

[quote name='Denial' date='17 February 2010 - 07:57 PM' timestamp='1266458230' post='2188570']
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.
[/quote]
You're really bad at this. At least Archon has some subtlety.

[Believland]

[quote name='Heft' date='17 February 2010 - 10:00 PM' timestamp='1266462000' post='2188679']
You're really bad at this. At least Archon has some subtlety.
[/quote]
Revanche has never been subtle

[Haflinger]

[quote name='OneBallMan' date='17 February 2010 - 10:37 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]
Give it to me

[Stumpy Jung Il]

[quote name='Heft' date='17 February 2010 - 10:00 PM' timestamp='1266462000' post='2188679']
You're really bad at this. At least Archon has some subtlety.
[/quote]
Revanche doesn't do subtle he just speaks the truth. Also hes handsome.

[Prodigal Moon]

[quote name='joracy' date='17 February 2010 - 09:14 PM' timestamp='1266459270' post='2188600']
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.
[/quote]
If an individual gains control of a defensive situation, and then attempts to inflict punishment on his assailant, then yes, he will be judged to be acting aggressively. There is such a thing as "reasonable force."

I wouldn't necessarily say any of that even applies here, but the principle exists.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Prodigal Moon

[Jyrinx]

[quote name='Saber' date='16 February 2010 - 10:57 PM' timestamp='1266379052' post='2186965']
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.
[/quote]

I just noticed this post (really haven't been paying attention to this thread at all). I think you mistook the context of that PM I sent to Chief Savage Man Saber. Here is the relevant information:

1) At the time of that PM, I was completely unaware of any plans by TOP to preemptively hit CnG. If Uhtred and Pezstar knew at the time, they did not tell me
2) Unlike what some CnG members have been saying in retrospect, I was (and still am) convinced that CnG would've joined the other (aka \m/oralist) side of the war. To me it was just a matter of time
3) I was told that TOP and IRON would be entering on the polarist side of the war.

Combining numbers 1 and 3, I thought TOP would be entering through treaties, probably with IRON against someone hitting NSO. Or maybe just counter whoever hit IRON as they came in to defend NSO. I had absolutely no idea you guys were going to preemptively hit anyone. I just extrapolated the situation and in my view the end game was CnG joining against TOP.

I sent that PM to CSM because I don't really like TSO. That's really it. Not a fan of TOP either but I also don't hate you guys or hold anything that much against you. But you guys are allied to TSO and thus in my mind part of that power cluster: any coalition attempt that ever tried to take down TSO would have to go through you. And so I was very much concerned that the coalition capable of providing a reasonable counter to TSO/TOP/IRON would be destroying itself over in my opinion something completely silly.

With all that context now, perhaps re-reading my PM will let you see what actually happened: I of my own volition and with no knowledge of what you guys were doing made a desperate plea to \m/ to think about the situation in a larger context and how the current war was dumb. What's funny is that I didn't even know my PM had influenced CSM at all until he had made the post in that thread (that then prompted me to dump the full text of the PM).

Also, here was my exact reaction in the STA gov channel when I saw that you guys hit CnG:

[00:23] <@Jyrinx[STA]> Wait
[00:23] <@Jyrinx[STA]> I just read the forums
[00:23] <@Jyrinx[STA]> Didd TOP just aggresively declare on CnG?

I learned what was going on when you posted it, heh.

So yeah, there was no conspiracy against TOP. Or if there was, I wasn't part of it. If you have any more questions just let me know.

P.S. You should drop your treaty with TSO. Just my opinion.

[SpoiL]

[quote name='joracy' date='17 February 2010 - 09:14 PM' timestamp='1266459270' post='2188600']
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.
[/quote]

TOP [i]aggressively[/i] preempted C&G from attacking them. That was the reason for this particular front of this war that should have ended with NpO-\m/. Who's fault is it that the war continues? Well, who is the one calling it a separate war; who is the one playing semantics with the word 'aggressive', ignoring the defensive implications. I know you stand to gain from it, which is why we hear all the spin. And when confronted with the reality, it is why you resort back to "but they attacked us!".

[Tomcat]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='17 February 2010 - 06:13 PM' timestamp='1266459197' post='2188598']
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).[/quote]

Let me get this straight.
It's CnG's fault that TOP and IRON's attack has backfired, and this entire war is CnG's fault for not warning TOP and IRON ahead of time that their attack on them might backfire?

How about this.
It's TOP and IRON's fault they chose to ignore treaties and attack CnG without first knowing what was actually going on.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Tomcat

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Tomcat' date='18 February 2010 - 03:45 AM' timestamp='1266464709' post='2188759']
Let me get this straight.
It's CnG's fault that TOP and IRON's attack has backfired, and this entire war is CnG's fault for not warning TOP and IRON ahead of time that their attack on them might backfire?

How about this.
It's TOP and IRON's fault they chose to ignore treaties and attack CnG without first knowing what was actually going on.
[/quote]
Thats quite the revolutionary point of view

[Tenaya]

*whoop*

Edited February 18, 2010 by Tenaya

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 03:13 AM' timestamp='1266459197' post='2188598']
[i]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[/i]

The [i]only[/i] reason it makes sense to do that is to entrap TOP and IRON.[/quote]

Really?

Let's analize the matter from CnG point of view:

- Our allies are at war with X, and we may have to enter the war
- We learn Y, our sworn enemies, are about to attack us while our allies are busy fighting X
- We hurry up to peace our allies and X, so we can face Y in full strenght.

Really, it makes all the sense to me, without need to look for conspirancy theories.

[quote name='Tomcat' date='18 February 2010 - 04:45 AM' timestamp='1266464709' post='2188759']
Let me get this straight.
It's CnG's fault that TOP and IRON's attack has backfired, and this entire war is CnG's fault for not warning TOP and IRON ahead of time that their attack on them might backfire?

How about this.
It's TOP and IRON's fault they chose to ignore treaties and attack CnG without first knowing what was actually going on.[/quote]

My thoughts, exactly.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Krashnaia

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Tomcat' date='18 February 2010 - 01:45 PM' timestamp='1266464709' post='2188759']
Let me get this straight.
It's CnG's fault that TOP and IRON's attack has backfired, and this entire war is CnG's fault for not warning TOP and IRON ahead of time that their attack on them might backfire?
[/quote]
No, you're missing his point.

Had they or Grub been [b]genuinely[/b] concerned with achieving peace and de-escalating the conflict (as claimed in the OP), given that they had advance warning of the impending attack and knowledge that the Polar-\m/ peace was nearing a successful conclusion, surely someone should have approached TOP & co. to either stall or stand-down the attack?

Unless of course there wasn't a genuine desire for peace or a de-escalation of the conflict, of course. Which is fine in my books, to be honest - just !@#$@#$ own it and be honest, instead of playing with around with this out-and-out !@#$%^&*, for $%&@s sakes.

[NLights]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='17 February 2010 - 09:55 PM' timestamp='1266465321' post='2188776']
No, you're missing his point.

Had they or Grub been [b]genuinely[/b] concerned with achieving peace and de-escalating the conflict (as claimed in the OP), given that they had advance warning of the impending attack and knowledge that the Polar-\m/ peace was nearing a successful conclusion, surely someone should have approached TOP & co. to either stall or stand-down the attack?

Unless of course there wasn't a genuine desire for peace or a de-escalation of the conflict, of course. Which is fine in my books, to be honest - just !@#$@#$ own it and be honest, instead of playing with around with this out-and-out !@#$%^&*, for $%&@s sakes.
[/quote]

Oh, how I miss you in TOP always saying what I wanted too It appears you still have that talent.

Hope all is well Umar! :top:

[Tomcat]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='17 February 2010 - 07:53 PM' timestamp='1266465180' post='2188771']
Really?

Let's analize the matter from CnG point of view:

- Our allies are at war with X, and we may have to enter the war
- We learn Y, our sworn enemies, are about to attack us while our allies are busy fighting X
- We hurry up to peace our allies and X, so we can face Y in full strenght.

Really, it makes all the sense to me, without need to look for conspirancy theories.
[/quote]
But don't you see, it's your fault for not following your obligation of warning your enemies ahead of time that their attack might be a bad idea!

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='17 February 2010 - 07:55 PM' timestamp='1266465321' post='2188776']
No, you're missing his point.

Had they or Grub been [b]genuinely[/b] concerned with achieving peace and de-escalating the conflict (as claimed in the OP), given that they had advance warning of the impending attack and knowledge that the Polar-\m/ peace was nearing a successful conclusion, surely someone should have approached TOP & co. to either stall or stand-down the attack?

Unless of course there wasn't a genuine desire for peace or a de-escalation of the conflict, of course. Which is fine in my books, to be honest - just !@#$@#$ own it and be honest, instead of playing with around with this out-and-out !@#$%^&*, for $%&@s sakes.
[/quote]
And to that I'd say, had TOP or IRON been truly only interested in entering the conflict to help their "allies," they would have entered by declaring war on alliances that were actually involved in the conflict rather than an entire alliance block they happened to have a grudge against.

You're questioning Polar and CnG's motivations in not tipping off TOP and IRON that their attack would fail. In reality, you should be questioning why TOP and IRON decided to ignore treaties and attack CnG in the first place.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Tomcat

[In Spades]

34-pages later and this is all I got

[img]http://ryanericsongcanlas.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/redundancy.jpg[/img]

adieu

[joracy]

[quote name='Prodigal Moon' date='17 February 2010 - 10:28 PM' timestamp='1266463720' post='2188730']
If an individual gains control of a defensive situation, and then attempts to inflict punishment on his assailant, then yes, he will be judged to be acting aggressively. There is such a thing as "reasonable force."

I wouldn't necessarily say any of that even applies here, but the principle exists.
[/quote]

When it comes to war, I'd say fighting the war in an attempt to win it is "reasonable force".

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='18 February 2010 - 04:55 AM' timestamp='1266465321' post='2188776']
No, you're missing his point.

Had they or Grub been [b]genuinely[/b] concerned with achieving peace and de-escalating the conflict (as claimed in the OP), given that they had advance warning of the impending attack and knowledge that the Polar-\m/ peace was nearing a successful conclusion, surely someone should have approached TOP & co. to either stall or stand-down the attack?

Unless of course there wasn't a genuine desire for peace or a de-escalation of the conflict, of course. Which is fine in my books, to be honest - just !@#$@#$ own it and be honest, instead of playing with around with this out-and-out !@#$%^&*, for $%&@s sakes.[/quote]

The problem with your stance is that you assume TOP's stance is honest. Thus, if the other side contradicts TOP's point of view, it must be dishonest.

Once you realize that TOP et al are feeding loads and loads of crap in the Forums, you'll be able to achieve a greater enlightenment about the current events.

CnG stance is pretty simple: They attacked us, we are defending. It's TOP the one who needs to build up petty excuses and conspirancy theories to justify their unprovocked agression and the fact that they started a war with no Casus Belli.

[quote name='Tomcat' date='18 February 2010 - 05:15 AM' timestamp='1266466536' post='2188812']
But don't you see, it's your fault for not following your obligation of warning your enemies ahead of time that their attack might be a bad idea![/quote]

Such treachery!

The CnG and his aggressiveness are turning this into way more than what it was meant to be. The poor TOPpians were just paying a peaceful visit, and the New Hegemony just took advantage of the TOPpians ingenuity and lined up the guns, instead of laying a red carpet and offering their virgins like a good host so their guests could feel like at home.

But rest assured, Karma will make them pay for their dishonesty.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Krashnaia

[Denial]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 11:43 AM' timestamp='1266459197' post='2188598']
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'.[/quote]
Complaints & Grievances does not desire perpetual war. We have stated this time and time again. Get it into your head. What we do desire is a peace agreement that reflects an acknowledgement by TOP, IRON & friends that they attacked without just cause, an admission of error, and some form of guarantee that the aggressors will not pursue this same course of action in the future. We will not accept white peace, particularly considering white peace would only function to greatly benefit those alliances that aggressively attacked us.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 11:43 AM' timestamp='1266459197' post='2188598']
Denial, you're just laughable, seriously. Your big words don't impress anyone who isn't already taken in by the C&G line.[/quote]
And you really think your constant complaints regarding my wording, your baseless accusations, flagrant disregard for anything resembling fact, piss-poor grasp on logical thought, and downright ludicrous conspiracy theories that are released each day really convince anyone who isn't Bob Janova?

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 11:43 AM' timestamp='1266459197' post='2188598']
All you need to do to 'regain your national sovereignty' and all the other flowery phrases you pull out is to accept peace. [/quote]
What is required for the member nations of Complaints & Grievances to once again have a guarantee regarding their monopoly on the legitimate use of force within their own territories is firstly a victory in this war, and secondly a peace agreement that includes the stipulations I stated above. As I, and many others have mentioned previously, a white peace would only serve TOP's interests. At the current time, they have a higher capacity to rebuild themselves to a larger size than we are capable; a white peace would thus directly hand TOP & IRON what they sought for their aggressive war - to weaken Complaints & Grievances at a time of vulnerability, increasing the disparity between their upper tiers and our own. Now, I know you are fully prepared to lie your face off and act entirely ignorant - saying anything necessary - to try and prevent your idols in TOP from having to actually face up to their mistakes, but if you fully believe even half of what you are spewing on these forums, then you have no comprehension of either military or political strategy. I again worry for Viridian Entente - an alliance I respect and hold in high regard - if you rise up into any leadership position.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 11:43 AM' timestamp='1266459197' post='2188598']
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]
Sir, our plan to set up IRON has succeeded!

At least we now know where IRON's propaganda department gets its material from.

[Seerow]

Man does anyone else remember when Bob Janova was a respectable cool person who was considered fairly intelligent?

Me too. Man, those were good times. Wonder if he sold his nation without telling anyone or something.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Tomcat' date='18 February 2010 - 02:15 PM' timestamp='1266466536' post='2188812']
You're questioning Polar and CnG's motivations in not tipping off TOP and IRON that their attack would fail. In reality, you should be questioning why TOP and IRON decided to ignore treaties and attack CnG in the first place.
[/quote]
I'm not questioning anything and you're missing my point.

To restate yet again, my point is simply that nobody in the know seems to have been genuinely interested in achieving peace or de-escalating the conflict, as opposed to what has been claimed on these forums.

What gets my goat is all this dishonest and disingenous pap about people claiming to sincerely want peace or that white peace should be granted all round (I have revised my thinking after considering the matter and believe that some sort of reps for an aggressive war are probably due to CnG), or that they were working diligently for peace when it's quite clear that a major war was engineered and/or encouraged from the outset by all of the involved parties. Which, as I've pointed out, is quite alright by me. What I would like is a bit of plain speaking and honesty and less !@#$%^&* on these forums for once.

Edit: [quote name='Krashnaia' date='18 February 2010 - 02:21 PM' timestamp='1266466896' post='2188824']
The problem with your stance is that you assume TOP's stance is honest. Thus, if the other side contradicts TOP's point of view, it must be dishonest. Once you realize that TOP et al are feeding loads and loads of crap in the Forums, you'll be able to achieve a greater enlightenment about the current events.[/quote]
What the $%&@ are you going on about and how the $%&@ does it relate to anything I've written? I don't understand whatever the $%&@ point it is you're trying to make here to be honest.

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='18 February 2010 - 02:21 PM' timestamp='1266466896' post='2188824']CnG stance is pretty simple: They attacked us, we are defending. It's TOP the one who needs to build up petty excuses and conspirancy theories to justify their unprovocked agression and the fact that they started a war with no Casus Belli.[/quote]
I agree with your first point, I don't see anything to support your second point and I disagree with your last point. They have two very clear reasons for war stated in their declaration as far as I can tell.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz

[joracy]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='17 February 2010 - 10:55 PM' timestamp='1266465321' post='2188776']
No, you're missing his point.

Had they or Grub been [b]genuinely[/b] concerned with achieving peace and de-escalating the conflict (as claimed in the OP), given that they had advance warning of the impending attack and knowledge that the Polar-\m/ peace was nearing a successful conclusion, surely someone should have approached TOP & co. to either stall or stand-down the attack?

Unless of course there wasn't a genuine desire for peace or a de-escalation of the conflict, of course. Which is fine in my books, to be honest - just !@#$@#$ own it and be honest, instead of playing with around with this out-and-out !@#$%^&*, for $%&@s sakes.
[/quote]

I think it's a bit much to think that Archon should have ran and told TOP that Polar and \m/ were in peace talks for the 5th or 6th time, and that they might go through this time, and that they shouldn't preemptively declare on us.

[Haflinger]

If this war was engineered by anyone, the engineers need to be taken out and shot, for their next product is likely to look something like this

[img]http://lh3.ggpht.com/abramsv/R7OXDKoD1MI/AAAAAAAAIUI/i36rkLdEjK0/s800/47436435_747cb55015.jpg[/img]

[joracy]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='18 February 2010 - 12:21 AM' timestamp='1266470510' post='2188951']
I'm not questioning anything and you're missing my point.

To restate yet again, my point is simply that nobody in the know seems to have been genuinely interested in achieving peace or de-escalating the conflict, as opposed to what has been claimed on these forums.

What gets my goat is all this dishonest and disingenous pap about people claiming to sincerely want peace or that white peace should be granted all round (I have revised my thinking after considering the matter and believe that some sort of reps for an aggressive war are probably due to CnG), or that they were working diligently for peace when it's quite clear that a major war was engineered and/or encouraged from the outset by all of the involved parties. Which, as I've pointed out, is quite alright by me. What I would like is a bit of plain speaking and honesty and less !@#$%^&* on these forums for once.
[/quote]

The game changed when TOP et al hit. MK, and many others worked incredibly hard to secure a peace deal between \m/ and polar. Anybody who denies that is so incredibly out of touch with reality, it's not humorous. But when TOP et al hit, things changed dramatically.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='joracy' date='18 February 2010 - 12:24 AM' timestamp='1266470652' post='2188954']
I think it's a bit much to think that Archon should have ran and told TOP that Polar and \m/ were in peace talks for the 5th or 6th time, and that they might go through this time, and that they shouldn't preemptively declare on us.
[/quote]
It's been fairly well established that the TOP attack was leaked to Archon before it happened.

What hasn't been established is whether or not Archon, upon learning of the TOP attack, went to \m/ and told them to peace out Polar so this war would develop.