Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[potato]

[quote name='popsumpot' date='18 February 2010 - 09:28 AM' timestamp='1266481681' post='2189375']
Can I assume then that Polar will be too paying reps for their aggression?

fake edit: I picked your post randomly out of the many in this thread that expressed the sentiment of "reps should be paid for aggression"
[/quote]

[url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/NpO-%5Cm/_War"]Do you know what white peace means? Hint: it usually doesn't involve much reps...[/url]

[Bob Janova]

So aggression clearly can't be such a huge faux pas for you guys then

I'm going to ignore Denial and respond to the decent C&G/raider-side posters, because some of you can actually hold an argument without resorting to ad homs and lies. (And yes I realise the irony of the first part of that.)

[quote name="Krashnaia"]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.[/quote]
That's exactly what I said – C&G heard about the pre-emptive attack and pressured the other fronts to peace out to trap TOP/IRON into a war that they did not want. (The war they wanted was one in which the Polar coalition won.) Thanks for agreeing with me (apart from the 'sworn enemies' bit which is hyperbole).

[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.[/quote]
Both of these things are true. Fault is shared, between TOP/IRON, C&G (or at least MK, not sure how many other people Archon told about the incoming attack) and NpO. Different action by any three of them would have stopped this front from opening.

[quote]TOP ... started a war with no Casus Belli.[/quote]
(in a few posts)

There is a clear CB in TOP's DoW. You may not agree with it or think that it was sufficient reason for war, but saying that there isn't one is outright false. The CB is 'You were about to counter-attack us anyway so we're taking the deployment advantage and hitting you first'.

Seerow, just because I'm opposing you doesn't mean you have to go for character assassination. C&G are not angels in this front and your side's attempt to railroad anyone who dares to dissent is rather disappointing for a bloc which suffered 'media oppression' for so long.

[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.[/quote]
It's not a bit much, if he really wanted peace and not just to manipulate the war into a lopsided one against TOP/IRON, to, when he heard of the incoming attack, inform TOP and IRON that the reason they were thinking of entering was about to disappear. Or at the very least to make sure that NpO did so. What Archon actually did – pressuring for a peace in the other fronts and not doing anything to avoid this front – has pulled his alliance, and all of his allies (not to mention the rest of the world), into a damaging war to serve (perceived) C&G strategic interests. The ally that they were supposedly helping (NpO) has been pulled onto both sides and lost 3M NS or so since the time that Archon could have avoided escalation entirely – as C&G claim to have wanted to do.

[Denial]

Ah, an admission of defeat, Bob Janova. It is nice to see that you are willing to recognise your superiors in the political arena.

[quote name='Haflinger' date='18 February 2010 - 05:25 PM' timestamp='1266479737' post='2189277']
The most likely candidates are Archon, Londo, Denial, Hoo or Xiphosis, but there are plenty of others as well.
[/quote]
I'm retired, I don't involve myself in backroom politics at all

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='18 February 2010 - 12:02 AM' timestamp='1266472949' post='2189024']
even i don't believe that CnG have somehow become the aggressors because they refuse to give TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN white peace. i also don't believe that none of those alliances actually deserve white peace considering the actions they took that began this whole moronic episode.
[/quote]

you still don't understand what i'm saying. TOP/IRON are the aggressors, yes, they started the war. but no they're on the defensive.

[lebubu]

[quote name='Denial' date='18 February 2010 - 01:39 PM' timestamp='1266496747' post='2189556']
I'm retired, I don't involve myself in backroom politics at all
[/quote]

The perfect cover-up...

[Bob Janova]

There is no danger of you being a superior in that or pretty much any other arena but I recognise bashing my head against a brick wall.

[delendum]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 12:30 PM' timestamp='1266496247' post='2189548']
So aggression clearly can't be such a huge faux pas for you guys then

I'm going to ignore Denial and respond to the decent C&G/raider-side posters, because some of you can actually hold an argument without resorting to ad homs and lies. (And yes I realise the irony of the first part of that.)


That's exactly what I said – C&G heard about the pre-emptive attack and pressured the other fronts to peace out to trap TOP/IRON into a war that they did not want. (The war they wanted was one in which the Polar coalition won.) Thanks for agreeing with me (apart from the 'sworn enemies' bit which is hyperbole).
[/quote]

What we did was reactionary. As they themselves stated, for their part, their main interest was bloodying up a perceived threat. I don't doubt that they wanted the Polar coalition to win, but only because achieving their personal goals involved being a part of it.

We want our coalition to win just as much as they do. You're blaming us for taking steps to ensure we achieve that?

[quote]Both of these things are true. Fault is shared, between TOP/IRON, C&G (or at least MK, not sure how many other people Archon told about the incoming attack) and NpO. Different action by any three of them would have stopped this front from opening.[/quote]

And TOP would have continued to see us as a thread and eventually use another excuse to come after us. What exactly would that have solved as far as this particular issue is concerned?

([quote]in a few posts)

There is a clear CB in TOP's DoW. You may not agree with it or think that it was sufficient reason for war, but saying that there isn't one is outright false. The CB is 'You were about to counter-attack us anyway so we're taking the deployment advantage and hitting you first'.[/quote]

The CB could also be "we want to bloody you up and what you stand for". I don't blame you for picking the one you like best though.

[quote]Seerow, just because I'm opposing you doesn't mean you have to go for character assassination. C&G are not angels in this front and your side's attempt to railroad anyone who dares to dissent is rather disappointing for a bloc which suffered 'media oppression' for so long.[/quote]

Again, I don't understand what you expect of us. There is the pixel war and then there is the PR war, and both need to be fought. (I'm not referring to character assassination, don't get outraged just yet)

[quote]It's not a bit much, if he really wanted peace and not just to manipulate the war into a lopsided one against TOP/IRON, to, when he heard of the incoming attack, inform TOP and IRON that the reason they were thinking of entering was about to disappear. Or at the very least to make sure that NpO did so. What Archon actually did – pressuring for a peace in the other fronts and not doing anything to avoid this front – has pulled his alliance, and all of his allies (not to mention the rest of the world), into a damaging war to serve (perceived) C&G strategic interests. The ally that they were supposedly helping (NpO) has been pulled onto both sides and lost 3M NS or so since the time that Archon could have avoided escalation entirely – as C&G claim to have wanted to do.[/quote]

Wait, so it was somehow our job to inform TOP/IRON that their excuse to come after us is about to peace out? Look, things are very simple as far as we're concerned: you want to come after us, do it, but don't !@#$%* about it when you find out we can actually hurt you.

[stangad]

I don't usually post here but I do have a question.

1) TOP/IRON attacked CnG. CnG defends themselves. TOP/IRON denounce CnG's dismissal of white peace.

Why is CnG being made the villain for defending themselves? If I were a betting man, I would guess that TOP or IRON would feel precisely as CnG does if they were in the opposite situation and for good reason. If somebody attacks you, they should not get peace on their terms but on yours.

To quote Tomcat:

[quote]I'm going to ask you to do something very difficult, and that is to put yourself in somebody else's shoes.
If TORN was suddenly attacked without treaty, by a large group of tech heavy alliances who absolutely devastated the entire upper tier of TORN nations, and then suddenly, once your allies jumped in to help turn around the war, the attacking alliances immediately started demanding an end to the conflict and white peace, what might your reaction be?[/quote]

[Bob Janova]

[quote]There is the pixel war and then there is the PR war, and both need to be fought. (I'm not referring to character assassination, don't get outraged just yet)[/quote]
Certainly ... I expect you to defend your position, though preferably while staying on the facts where possible. That doesn't make me unintelligent or uncool just because I am not totally in line with your position though.

[quote]And TOP would have continued to see us as a thread and eventually use another excuse to come after us[/quote]
That's just as paranoid as Crymson.

[quote]Wait, so it was somehow our job to inform TOP/IRON that their excuse to come after us is about to peace out? Look, things are very simple as far as we're concerned: you want to come after us, do it, but don't !@#$%* about it when you find out we can actually hurt you.[/quote]
If you were really interested in peace, then yes, you among others should have told TOP/IRON that the rest of the war was about to be peaced out. It was not their excuse, it was their [i]reason[/i]. Certainly, others (notably NpO) could have done so too; it is not entirely C&G's fault, but you could have avoided the current front of the war entirely. As for the second half, if that's your (C&G's) position then you should get the rest of your posters to stop saying they were interested in stopping the escalation and that they were 'working for peace'. Manipulating the war so that it was a worse situation for TOP/IRON after they entered (and a worse situation for NpO too) is not working for peace.

[quote]We want our coalition to win just as much as they do. You're blaming us for taking steps to ensure we achieve that?[/quote]
But wait, I thought the C&G line was that this wasn't the same as the raiding coalition, and that you didn't have 'your coalition'? Your coalition had 'won' – the raiding alliances received peace and with very few restrictions on future behaviour – if you'd just made sure that the last front was not opened.

And even on a military level, your coalition is further from winning every day the war continues. Certainly, TOP and IRON lose, but so do you.

[quote]What we did was reactionary.[/quote]
OOC: That word doesn't quite mean what you think it does. I think you mean 'what we did was a reaction'. Reactionary means a premature and ill-thought out reaction, more like what TOP/IRON did in reacting to the imminent threat.

[neneko]

Janova, You keep dodging a few issues in every post you make.

Now that TOP have both attacked us and openly stated that they wish so see us burn beliving that they have it in for us isn't paranoia. I'd say we have pretty good reasons to belive they'll take any chance they get to hurt us.

CnG did not start this war. You may dance around this as much as you want but the fact remains true.

Now go back to explaining why being attacked by top is immoral.

[StevieG]

[quote name='Tomcat' date='18 February 2010 - 10:08 PM' timestamp='1266487721' post='2189477']
And the attackers have much to gain by ending the war now that they aren't winning it anymore.
Since when is being attacked not a valid reason for war?

I'm going to ask you to do something very difficult, and that is to put yourself in somebody else's shoes.
If TORN was suddenly attacked without treaty, by a large group of tech heavy alliances who absolutely devastated the entire upper tier of TORN nations, and then suddenly, once your allies jumped in to help turn around the war, the attacking alliances immediately started demanding an end to the conflict and white peace, what might your reaction be?
[/quote]

I believe I already answered that here. But I will also add that TORN has a history of granting white peace, especially if our side would remain larger and more powerful, thus less susceptable to another hostile action. It would seem to me that C&G are in this more powerful position, but I have recognised that they are possibly not so comfortable with TOP in paticular being able to rebuy all their infra with their warchest abilities and return to their prewar NS with relative ease.
[quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 08:31 PM' timestamp='1266481878' post='2189383']

All that being said, I dont harbour any grudges or resentment for all of this, as they are doing the best they can for their alliances and friends and future safety regardless of how founded their "paranoia" is. I am pretty sure most would do the same being put in their position. I cant find any fault really with it.

Where I am finding faults is various members posting in this thread that do not recognise or will not admit to the obvious. As well as this there seems a very biased and non objective posting occurence. Also, there is a lot of statements coming out as facts, that are either completely wrong, or grosely misrepresent situations that have occured.
[/quote]

Nothing wrong with what C&G are doing in my opinion, but to act like they are the victim now in the position they are in is laughable. You need to understand for one that as a poster stated before "TOP and co aggresively pre-empted C&G and co from attacking them". If you cannot see how that is, then you are not thinking objectively.

[Bob Janova]

Neneko: the situation that Delendum was describing – whether to tip off TOP and IRON of the impending peace – was before they attacked. Regardless, I disagree that 'they are attacking us now' stops 'they will attack us in future if we peaced out today' from being paranoia.

[quote]openly stated that they wish so see us burn[/quote]
Link please? I haven't seen anything to suggest that beyond the usual wartime posting by members. C&G posters have been saying that about TOP and IRON when you weren't even at war, so I hope you aren't just extrapolating from some wartime dislike. The truth is that if TOP or IRON really wanted to see you burn and destroyed, they had plenty of opportunity to do that during the Hegemony time.

[quote]CnG did not start this war[/quote]
No, Polar did. And as I've said elsewhere, that's actually irrelevant – being the defender doesn't give you carte blanche to roll the aggressors indefinitely. (Denial, if you're still reading, indefinite is not the same as perpetual – if you're going to get out the big words at least try to understand them.) I'm not dancing around that point: obviously TOP and IRON opened this front, not C&G, and I've stated that several times. That doesn't mean that C&G are immune from any criticism for their actions on the front (including their complicity in opening it, as proved by Archon admitting to knowing in advance and not doing anything to stop it).

[James I]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 01:49 PM' timestamp='1266500971' post='2189602']Link please? I haven't seen anything to suggest that beyond the usual wartime posting by members. C&G posters have been saying that about TOP and IRON when you weren't even at war, so I hope you aren't just extrapolating from some wartime dislike. The truth is that if TOP or IRON really wanted to see you burn and destroyed, they had plenty of opportunity to do that during the Hegemony time.[/quote]

There are IRC logs with Crymson confirming that much of the reason TOP are in this war is a feeling that this is the best time to bloody us. This was before the war began. I'm sure someone will be along with those shortly. Anyway, TOP's publicly announced their wish to get at us - this is found in the less strongly-worded [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79441]declaration of war[/url]. See: "For our part, however, much [sic] our reason to enter this war lies in our desire to defeat those [undoubtedly C&G]". And the ending: "This is a war they have brought upon themselves".

edit: I don't follow the last part of that segment. The Hegemony did see us burn, if you remember?

Edited February 18, 2010 by James I

[eztoindajar]

okok trolls lets stop this. CnG will not grant white peace to a tainted war. Think what you want about that. If you really want peace then stop arguing here and surrender.

Edited February 18, 2010 by eztoindajar

[neneko]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 02:49 PM' timestamp='1266500971' post='2189602']
Neneko: the situation that Delendum was describing – whether to tip off TOP and IRON of the impending peace – was before they attacked. Regardless, I disagree that 'they are attacking us now' stops 'they will attack us in future if we peaced out today' from being paranoia.
[/quote]
While not a solid proof it is reasonable to believe that if they attack us today for disliking us they might do so again tomorrow.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 02:49 PM' timestamp='1266500971' post='2189602']
Link please? I haven't seen anything to suggest that beyond the usual wartime posting by members. C&G posters have been saying that about TOP and IRON when you weren't even at war, so I hope you aren't just extrapolating from some wartime dislike. The truth is that if TOP or IRON really wanted to see you burn and destroyed, they had plenty of opportunity to do that during the Hegemony time.
[/quote]
The TOP DoW. They state that their main reasoning for entering the war is unrelated to the polar-\m/ conflict and that reason is to see us defeated. Since I know your rebutal here I'll reply to that too. No it's not one and the same. They explicitly state that there is two separate reasons for entering the war. The polar-\m/ conflict was one of them.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 02:49 PM' timestamp='1266500971' post='2189602']
No, Polar did. And as I've said elsewhere, that's actually irrelevant – being the defender doesn't give you carte blanche to roll the aggressors indefinitely.
[/quote]
That's quite a big assumption after barely 3 weeks of war.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 02:49 PM' timestamp='1266500971' post='2189602']
I'm not dancing around that point: obviously TOP and IRON opened this front, not C&G, and I've stated that several times. That doesn't mean that C&G are immune from any criticism for their actions on the front
[/quote]
What exactly are you criticizing us for doing? I get that you're very upset at something but to date I have still not fully grasped exactly what actions it is you're criticizing us for.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 02:49 PM' timestamp='1266500971' post='2189602']
(including their complicity in opening it, as proved by Archon admitting to knowing in advance and not doing anything to stop it).
[/quote]
Wow. What exactly should Archon have done to stop TOP from declaring on us? We're not responsible for TOPs actions. You keep hitting new lows with your arguments. Congratulations.

[Gn0xious Jr]

[quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 12:31 AM' timestamp='1266481878' post='2189383']
Both these posts hit the nail right on the head.

Playing the "but they attacked us" card is a load of BS. C&G and co have more to gain by prolonging the war, and have taken a strategical decision to batter TOP and co down as much as possible, or get heavy reps. The main reason for this is that they beleive TOP and co may come back for them in the future, so they want to weaken them as much as possible.

Its not defensive action taking place on the majority of C&G and cos fronts any more, as they clearly have the upperhand.

All that being said, I dont harbour any grudges or resentment for all of this, as they are doing the best they can for their alliances and friends and future safety regardless of how founded their "paranoia" is. I am pretty sure most would do the same being put in their position. I cant find any fault really with it.

Where I am finding faults is various members posting in this thread that do not recognise or will not admit to the obvious. As well as this there seems a very biased and non objective posting occurence. Also, there is a lot of statements coming out as facts, that are either completely wrong, or grosely misrepresent situations that have occured.
[/quote]

TOP and co. attack out of "paranoia" that CnG is an immediate threat... We defend ourselves, our defense treaties are activated, and currently have a statistical advantage. Seeing as how TOP and co. attacked us, not the other way around, I'd say the threat that TOP and co. pose to CnG is quite REAL.

If you run up behind me, punch me in the back of the head while I'm trying to get in my car, and the other 3 people in my car get out to assist while I'm dazed, you don't get to say "whoopsie, my bad, this obviously is more than I can handle... let's just go our separate ways." you face the consequences of your actions, which may include some jail time for assault.

[mitchh]

[quote name='Gn0xious Jr' date='18 February 2010 - 09:08 AM' timestamp='1266505695' post='2189659']
If you run up behind me, punch me in the back of the head while I'm trying to get in my car, and the other 3 people in my car get out to assist while I'm dazed, you don't get to say "whoopsie, my bad, this obviously is more than I can handle... let's just go our separate ways." you face the consequences of your actions, which may include some jail time for assault.
[/quote]
I really wish people would stop using analogies to make a point. It isn't a good way to prove something.

We weren't behind you. We were very much in front of you and heading towards you. CnG knew of the pending attack.

Edited February 18, 2010 by mitchh

[Gn0xious Jr]

[quote name='mitchh' date='18 February 2010 - 07:31 AM' timestamp='1266507116' post='2189676']
I really wish people would stop using analogies to make a point. It isn't a good way to prove something.

We weren't behind you. We were very much in front of you and heading towards you. CnG knew of the pending attack.
[/quote]
okay... so you come in front of the car and punch me in the face... my friends still get out of the car, and you say "whoa, guys, relax, i can't handle all this, let's forget the whole thing." you still should see consequences for your assault, and possible jail time. Using either this analogy or the actual events that take place, it still illustrates cowardice from the aggressor.

-TOP&Co. were paranoid of the potential threat that CnG would counter should TOP/IRON attack CnG's allies during Polar-\m/
-TOP&Co. preemptively attack CnG, and later admit that it was a pretty silly decision
-Treaties fly about, world starts to crumble, CnG starts to have a statistical advantage
-TOP&Co. no longer feel this is a fight worth fighting, and request that we all go our separate ways
-IRON makes an unofficial "joint" post regarding white peace, which again illustrates the "my bad, my bad" mindset
-If TOP&Co. do feel that they wrongfully declared an aggressive attack on CnG, they should seek to surrender.

[Nizzle]

[quote name='neneko' date='18 February 2010 - 07:11 AM' timestamp='1266502281' post='2189614']
Wow. What exactly should Archon have done to stop TOP from declaring on us? We're not responsible for TOPs actions. You keep hitting new lows with your arguments. Congratulations.
[/quote]

I think the recommendation is that instead of getting excited at the opportunity to stomp TOP/IRON he could have informed them "Hey, I hear you are going to attack us. FYI, peace is about to be declared."

Then again, you don't stop your enemy when he is making a mistake...but, TOP/IRON weren't CnG's enemy right? Cause, if they were prior to the DoW...wouldn't that mean...no way.

[mitchh]

[quote name='Gn0xious Jr' date='18 February 2010 - 09:45 AM' timestamp='1266507904' post='2189690']
okay... so you come in front of the car and punch me in the face... my friends still get out of the car, and you say "whoa, guys, relax, i can't handle all this, let's forget the whole thing." you still should see consequences for your assault, and possible jail time. Using either this analogy or the actual events that take place, it still illustrates cowardice from the aggressor.

-TOP&Co. were paranoid of the potential threat that CnG would counter should TOP/IRON attack CnG's allies during Polar-\m/
-TOP&Co. preemptively attack CnG, and later admit that it was a pretty silly decision
-Treaties fly about, world starts to crumble, CnG starts to have a statistical advantage
-TOP&Co. no longer feel this is a fight worth fighting, and request that we all go our separate ways
-IRON makes an unofficial "joint" post regarding white peace, which again illustrates the "my bad, my bad" mindset
-If TOP&Co. do feel that they wrongfully declared an aggressive attack on CnG, they should seek to surrender.
[/quote]
Fundamental difference. It also isn't "We punch you then friends come out then we beg for forgiveness." We've been at war for weeks, with millions of NS lost on both sides. I'm good with fighting for awhile. Do the terms that I would accept exist? Yes, but I'm more than happy continuing this fight. You're also completely ignoring the urging of peace by Archon towards \m/, but that would mess up your analogy.

[Shardoon]

[quote name='Gn0xious Jr' date='18 February 2010 - 09:45 AM' timestamp='1266507904' post='2189690']

-IRON makes an unofficial "joint" post regarding white peace, which again illustrates the "my bad, my bad" mindset

[/quote]



Am I uninformed or are you?

[Gn0xious Jr]

[quote name='mitchh' date='18 February 2010 - 08:06 AM' timestamp='1266509172' post='2189718']
Fundamental difference. It also isn't "We punch you then friends come out then we beg for forgiveness." We've been at war for weeks, with millions of NS lost on both sides. I'm good with fighting for awhile. Do the terms that I would accept exist? Yes, but I'm more than happy continuing this fight. You're also completely ignoring the urging of peace by Archon towards \m/, but that would mess up your analogy.
[/quote]

Alright, so there's a dude punching a bratty kid further down the street... a finely dressed man pleads with the dude to stop punching the bratty kid. You shout "hey, i'm heading up to help you deal with that bratty kid!" and start running over. Rather than hit the bratty kid, you (and your friends)instead approach my car from the front, punch me in the face, saying "give me your money and your car!". My friends get out of the car, and we all throw punches. The finely dressed man says to the dude "seriously, i can't continue to ask you to stop punching this bratty kid, my friends are being attacked over there." Dude says "fine." Finely dressed man rushes in to help organize the efforts. A few more of my friends join in the fray. The Dude, after catching his breath from beating on the bratty kid, comes over and punches you/your friends. you say "maybe this wasn't such a great idea after all, i have more money than you, and your car smells kind of funny, can we just call this even?"

Is that better?

[Bob Janova]

[quote]What exactly should Archon have done to stop TOP from declaring on us?[/quote]
I stated pretty clearly that I believe Archon, having learnt about the attack, and in the spirit of trying to stop escalation and push peace which you guys claim you were in, should have tipped off TOP/IRON that peace was imminent, or at the least made sure that Polar did so. TOPpers have stated that they would not have attacked if they knew peace was about to be declared.

[quote]What exactly are you criticizing us for doing? I get that you're very upset at something but to date I have still not fully grasped exactly what actions it is you're criticizing us for.[/quote]
I am criticising you for manipulating a global war into an opportunity to roll a perceived enemy, half of which happens to be full of my friends, and then hiding behind a scramble for the moral high ground and a smokescreen of 'but it's just defensive'.

Your actions make sense if what you were trying to do was get a position to roll TOP/IRON. They do not make sense if you wanted peace for yourselves and your allies, particularly NpO. So you have no right to be moralising about TOP's and IRON's (poorly constructed) scheme to hit C&G when you yourselves pulled an equally cynical scheme to entrap them once you heard about it. If you wanted to pull TOP and IRON into the front that they now find themselves in, then you just proved that you were a threat and an enemy all along.

Gnoxious, your analogy misses the point that C&G were armed to the teeth and eyeing up TOP and IRON.

[mitchh]

[quote name='Gn0xious Jr' date='18 February 2010 - 10:22 AM' timestamp='1266510150' post='2189730']
Alright, so there's a dude punching a bratty kid further down the street... a finely dressed man pleads with the dude to stop punching the bratty kid. You shout "hey, i'm heading up to help you deal with that bratty kid!" and start running over. Rather than hit the bratty kid, you (and your friends)instead approach my car from the front, punch me in the face, saying "give me your money and your car!". My friends get out of the car, and we all throw punches. The finely dressed man says to the dude "seriously, i can't continue to ask you to stop punching this bratty kid, my friends are being attacked over there." Dude says "fine." Finely dressed man rushes in to help organize the efforts. A few more of my friends join in the fray. The Dude, after catching his breath from beating on the bratty kid, comes over and punches you/your friends. you say "maybe this wasn't such a great idea after all, i have more money than you, and your car smells kind of funny, can we just call this even?"

Is that better?
[/quote]
Not really. I don't recall anybody demanding any material goods from CnG at any point, among other things.

Edited February 18, 2010 by mitchh

[Gn0xious Jr]

[quote name='mitchh' date='18 February 2010 - 08:33 AM' timestamp='1266510827' post='2189749']
Not really. I don't recall anybody demanding any material goods from CnG at any point, among other things.
[/quote]
it was added as compliment to ridiculous warchests, i can take it out if you want
i'm actually having some very civil conversations with the TOP folks i've been fighting.

Edit:
[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 08:22 AM' timestamp='1266510163' post='2189732']
Gnoxious, your analogy misses the point that C&G were armed to the teeth and eyeing up TOP and IRON.
[/quote]
So because we had some extra artillery in our car, it's our fault they made a poor decision. Your logic is why the world is so messed up; everyone is looking for someone else to blame their mistakes on. Take ownership, accept the consequences, and move on. (3 weeks of war is hardly a consequence)

Edited February 18, 2010 by Gn0xious Jr