Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[neneko]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 05:22 PM' timestamp='1266510163' post='2189732']
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]
Their poor opsec doesn't push the responsibility for their DoW over to us. Nice try.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 05:22 PM' timestamp='1266510163' post='2189732']
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.
[/quote]
I feel like we're getting back to this point but heck I'll say it again. We didn't declare war on TIFDTT they declared war on us.

When they did declare on us while we were unengaged in the war they proved themselves to be a threat to us. We have no reason to let them get off easy here when things doesn't go their way. The fact that they're your friends doesn't make what them undeserving of a good beating. Being friends with bob janova sadly doesn't give you any vip privileges.

So to sum it up our immoral deeds during this war boils down to not giving white peace to the people that attacked us for being potential enemies? Because that really doesn't sound that bad to me.

It's pretty clear that even you realize you don't have any ground to stand on here. You keep this up because they're your friends but I think even you realize that cng isn't the big evil beast you try to argue that we are.

Edited February 18, 2010 by neneko

[mitchh]

[quote name='Gn0xious Jr' date='18 February 2010 - 10:43 AM' timestamp='1266511430' post='2189767']
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.
[/quote]

[quote name='Gn0xious Jr' date='18 February 2010 - 10:22 AM' timestamp='1266510150' post='2189730']
[...]saying "give me your money and your car!". [...]
[/quote]
Didn't read that way to me, but thank you for the kind words.
As an aside, I have enjoyed what seems like half of MK posting on our forums

Edited February 18, 2010 by mitchh

[mrcalkin]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 10:22 AM' timestamp='1266510163' post='2189732']


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.
[/quote]

I feel this has been argued over and over in the last week or so, but I am going to take a stab at it. What incentive was there for MK to inform TOP that peace was being brokered? If MK knew that TOP was about to declare on them (which I am nearly sure they did), why avoid the war and not let TOP walk into the flames ahead of them? Why would MK want to avoid this war when it was surely going to come in the near future? Of course they are using public opinion against TOP, but only because TOP enabled the criticism by declaring pre-emptively; they would simply be foolish not to take advantage of the "unjustness" of the situation when they are frequently considered to be of an immoral or unjust mentality and thus not often able to claim the moral high-ground. You claim that if C&G would have liked to secure peace for the NpO (an alliance that I have heard was being extremely abusive regarding lack of support on the \m/ front at the time) they would have attempted to avoid the war with TOP, yet last I heard, NpO had secured peace just prior to the declaration and could have remained at peace should they so wished. While obviously C&G had the [i]option[/i] to avoid this war, I see little reason why they would have. If the tables were turned and this was TOP being hit preemptively by C&G simply to take them out, I would not have been surprised or shocked if TOP had worked to dismantle them as well. Like you, I have friends on both sides, however, we cannot let that make us ignore the facts. While it seems fairly obvious that some or all of C&G would have been engaged with TOP had the original NpO-\m/ conflict continued to escalate, there would have been little justification for draconian terms or a markedly prolonged war. However, when TOP made their declaration and their foremost member of government stated explicitly that the main justification for the war was to preempt a perceived threat (doubtful TOP would have said that if they intended on awarding C&G white peace after a week or so of war, imo) and merely as an aside stated that they considered the battle as part of the larger conflict, they have given their foes much more justification for a more-destructive war than if they were simply drawn in via treaties.

I have been a member of multiple alliances that have been beat down. I was a member of an alliance that royally screwed up and started the Unjust War only to end up disbanding a scant week or so later. It sucks when you make a mistake and have to pay for it, but I think its important to recognize a mistake was made. My hope is that TOP will come out of this un-FANned and with better judgment. I still like quite a bit of folks there even if politically-speaking I've long since drifted away from them. I know they are capable of realizing mistakes have been made, and I think they are capable of holding their head up while apologizing, which is something rare in CN. I think, if you want to help TOP receive peace and get out of this alive, you are much more likely to achieve some sort of middle ground than ceaselessly defending their attack and claiming that C&G is equally in the wrong for not doing all they could to avoid this war. That, or you can continue arguing until you are blue in the face that C&G is just as at fault and that white peace needs to be given now and should have been given a week ago only to convince no one but those who already agreed with you. You are usually more reasonable than this BJ, and I know you can see that there are two sides to any $%&@-up.

[flak attack]

[quote name='mitchh' date='18 February 2010 - 11:06 AM' timestamp='1266509172' post='2189718']
You're also completely ignoring the urging of peace by Archon towards \m/, but that would mess up your analogy.
[/quote]
[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 08:49 AM' timestamp='1266500971' post='2189602']
as proved by Archon admitting to knowing in advance and not doing anything to stop it
[/quote]
Archon was trying to stop the war from the moment Polar hit \m/. His attempts that night were no different from his attempts the previous 8 or so nights.

[Gn0xious Jr]

[quote name='mitchh' date='18 February 2010 - 08:49 AM' timestamp='1266511753' post='2189779']
Didn't read that way to me, but thank you for the kind words.
[/quote]
yeah, at first i had the "we have more money than you" and it didn't make sense. The "give me your money and your car" would be an act of aggression, which was shown.

[mitchh]

[quote name='flak attack' date='18 February 2010 - 10:52 AM' timestamp='1266511973' post='2189787']
Archon was trying to stop the war from the moment Polar hit \m/. His attempts that night were no different from his attempts the previous 8 or so nights.
[/quote]
That line was in regards to his analogy, especially once Archon had knowledge of the impending attacks.

Edited February 18, 2010 by mitchh

[Haflinger]

[quote name='mrcalkin' date='18 February 2010 - 11:49 AM' timestamp='1266511786' post='2189782']
Why would MK want to avoid this war when it was surely going to come in the near future?
[/quote]
It wasn't. There's no basis to think it was except paranoia.

[neneko]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='18 February 2010 - 06:22 PM' timestamp='1266513772' post='2189821']
It wasn't. There's no basis to think it was except paranoia.
[/quote]
The fact that TOP stated in their DoW that the polar-\m/ conflict wasn't their main reason to go to war suggests otherwise.

Edited February 18, 2010 by neneko

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='18 February 2010 - 12:22 PM' timestamp='1266513772' post='2189821']
It wasn't. There's no basis to think it was except paranoia.
[/quote]
If IRON had declared upon Fark and the rest of SF had declared upon IRON and TOP had declared upon them then direct allies of MK would have been declared upon, correct? That was the reasoning behind the declaration, at least from that perspective. I disagreed with the ultimate decision but even MK acknowledges that at some future point it was reasonable to expect one of their direct allies, or a direct ally of another CnG alliance, to be attacked in the escalation, which would thus have led to their entry.

Again, I think the decision to skip that step was an error, but ultimately MK was expected, and expecting, to be involved at some future point.

EDIT: I may be misinterpreting what you are stating. I am not sure that you are claiming something different than what I am but the point remains correct regardless.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Ivan Moldavi

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='18 February 2010 - 12:22 PM' timestamp='1266513772' post='2189821']
It wasn't. There's no basis to think it was except paranoia.
[/quote]

....and the TOP Declaration of War, which your side likes to gloss over as nothing more than a poor choice of words.

[mrcalkin]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='18 February 2010 - 11:22 AM' timestamp='1266513772' post='2189821']
It wasn't. There's no basis to think it was except paranoia.
[/quote]

Twice in the span of a month there was escalation. Have fun being completely blind to the facts or simply willfully ignorant on these boards.

[Tulafaras]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='18 February 2010 - 06:33 PM' timestamp='1266514384' post='2189837']
If IRON had declared upon Fark and the rest of SF had declared upon IRON and TOP had declared upon them then direct allies of MK would have been declared upon, correct? That was the reasoning behind the declaration, at least from that perspective. I disagreed with the ultimate decision but even MK acknowledges that at some future point it was reasonable to expect one of their direct allies, or a direct ally of another CnG alliance, to be attacked in the escalation, which would thus have led to their entry.

Again, I think the decision to skip that step was an error, but ultimately MK was expected, and expecting, to be involved at some future point.

EDIT: I may be misinterpreting what you are stating. I am not sure that you are claiming something different than what I am but the point remains correct regardless.
[/quote]

That is the point i still don't understand. IRON had a perfectly serviceable way into this war, to back up a direct ally who was undoubtly under attack. If they had done so, the war would have stopped a week ago, with something close to white peace all around most likely.

The escalation from that point on might have included CnG, but frankly that isn't certain. It might have simply included all of SF and some close allies (FOK, VE ) e.g. or it might have brought in CnG who knows. But regardless if CnG had countered on IRON, TOP would still have been free to counter with the deployment advantadge at that point.

So why they choose to attack in such a strange way is honestly beyond me...

(note we were expecting the IRON counter within a single day of our attack, that was why a significant amount of our strength was in peacemode so we could join our allies in counterattacking).

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Tulafaras' date='18 February 2010 - 01:08 PM' timestamp='1266516503' post='2189899']
That is the point i still don't understand. IRON had a perfectly serviceable way into this war, to back up a direct ally who was undoubtly under attack. If they had done so, the war would have stopped a week ago, with something close to white peace all around most likely.

The escalation from that point on might have included CnG, but frankly that isn't certain. It might have simply included all of SF and some close allies (FOK, VE ) e.g. or it might have brought in CnG who knows. But regardless if CnG had countered on IRON, TOP would still have been free to counter with the deployment advantadge at that point.

So why they choose to attack in such a strange way is honestly beyond me...

(note we were expecting the IRON counter within a single day of our attack, that was why a significant amount of our strength was in peacemode so we could join our allies in counterattacking).
[/quote]
They chose to listen to some that thought they had a grand plan arranged in which certain parties would not honor their other treaties and would not abruptly leave the field. To some large amounts of NS automatically equate to correctness in regards to strategic and tactical ability. It was a bad plan and it has proven to have a bad result. In short, in my opinion, they $%&@ed up. Bad. That happens on occasion.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]What incentive was there for MK to inform TOP that peace was being brokered?[/quote]
If they were really interested in peace, and didn't want them and their allies to be in a damaging war, this question answers itself. By informing TOP, the second half of the war would have been avoided.

[quote]While obviously C&G had the option to avoid this war, I see little reason why they would have[/quote]
If they were rea– wait, I just typed that. If they wanted to manipulate the situation to give themselves an advantage in rolling TOP and IRON, then sure. But that makes them as cynical as TOP and IRON and therefore they shouldn't be trying to claim the moral high ground.

Your post is an extremely good utilitarian explanation of why C&G manipulated the war and are now trying to fake the victim position to manipulate public opinion as well. So thanks for that

[quote]Why would MK want to avoid this war when [b]it was surely going to come in the near future[/b]?[/quote]
Isn't that [i]exactly[/i] TOP/IRON's reasoning for declaring on them in the first place?

[quote]Archon was trying to stop the war from the moment Polar hit \m/. His attempts that night were no different from his attempts the previous 8 or so nights.[/quote]
That's not what Archon said:
[quote name="Archon"]I will not deny that MK was working quite diligently to secure peace in the Polar - \m/ theater, as it was really saddening for us to see our allies at odds with one another. [b]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[/b][/quote]

[quote]I feel like we're getting back to this point but heck I'll say it again. We didn't declare war on TIFDTT they declared war on us.[/quote]
You're not really making a point there. Nobody is claiming you declared on them. (That name is stupid, by the way. I motion we call the alliances on this front 'PEA', for Pre-Emptive Attackers.) But you did know that they were coming and laid a huge trap for them.

[quote]You are usually more reasonable than this BJ, and I know you can see that there are two sides to any $%&@-up. [/quote]
I've said in almost every post that TOP and IRON are in the wrong as well. I'm not really sure where this idea that I am supporting everything they have done is coming from. Well actually I do, it's the C&G propaganda crew on a discrediting mission. Obviously I'm stronger in my criticism of C&G because 90% of the posters here are completely behind the C&G line and really there is no need for another person to be loudly critical of TOP and IRON.

Edit:
[quote]Twice in the span of a month there was escalation[/quote]
IRON were a direct mandated defender of TPF, who were jumped in an aggressive war over a dubious and ancient reason. TOP's participation in that coalition can't reasonably be called escalatory, particularly considering Supergrievances went around collecting allies to join them in that aggressive war.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Bob Janova

[Scorbolt]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 09:22 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]

Right, we gave TIFDTT elevator eyes and they were offended.

[quote] (That name is stupid, by the way. I motion we call the alliances on this front 'PEA', for Pre-Emptive Attackers.)[/quote]

You are one to talk about stupid names while you still insist on referring to us as 'the raiding side' while alliances like TPF and NEW are fighting for your friends.

[quote]Your post is an extremely good utilitarian explanation of why C&G manipulated the war and are now trying to fake the victim position to manipulate public opinion as well. [/quote]

So, explain to me now how TOP is the victim in this? What exactly are you hoping to achieve in your posting other than to 'manipulate public opinion' and portray your friends as the victims. Hypocrite.

[quote]I've said in almost every post that TOP and IRON are in the wrong as well[/quote]

But they are still the victims right?

[Bob Janova]

If you're going to call me a hypocrite you'll have to point out where I supported the sort of cynical front manipulation and playing the victim that I'm criticising. But congratulations on joining the ad hom list.

It is the 'raiding side' because the war was started over unacceptable (to Polar) tech raiding. The alliances which support the tech raiding of alliances are all on that side anyway . Also because I think '\m/ side' overstates their importance to that coalition.

[quote]But they are still the victims right? [/quote]
Right now, no they are not, or at least both sides are – C&G of being attacked, and TOP/IRON for being trapped into the war. But the way your side is talking about peace, they certainly will be if those people get their way.

[Scorbolt]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 11:32 AM' timestamp='1266517955' post='2189932']
If you're going to call me a hypocrite you'll have to point out where I supported the sort of cynical front manipulation and playing the victim that I'm criticising. But congratulations on joining the ad hom list.[/quote]

Your hypocrisy lies in the fact that you involve yourself in the same actions while decrying them. I can't point out 'cynical front manipulation and playing the victim' because well that isn't even what you were talking about before.

[quote]Right now, no they are not, or at least both sides are – C&G of being attacked, and TOP/IRON for being trapped into the war. But the way your side is talking about peace, they certainly will be if those people get their way.[/quote]

TOP/IRON may well trapped by their commitment to white peace. Working on mutually agreeable terms is impossible in the face of such stubbornness. I'm not sure that makes them victims.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Scorbolt

[Gn0xious Jr]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 10:13 AM' timestamp='1266516786' post='2189905']
You're not really making a point there. Nobody is claiming you declared on them. (That name is stupid, by the way. I motion we call the alliances on this front 'PEA', for Pre-Emptive Attackers.) But you did know that they were coming and laid a huge trap for them.][/quote]
In almost every instance, if you hear someone is going to attack you, you prepare to defend yourself. If you "lay a huge trap for them" and they fall in, it's their fault.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 10:13 AM' timestamp='1266516786' post='2189905']
I've said in almost every post that TOP and IRON are in the wrong as well. I'm not really sure where this idea that I am supporting everything they have done is coming from. Well actually I do, it's the C&G propaganda crew on a discrediting mission. Obviously I'm stronger in my criticism of C&G because 90% of the posters here are completely behind the C&G line and really there is no need for another person to be loudly critical of TOP and IRON.
[/quote]
Not that it really matters, but I respect you for clarifying to the masses, yet again, that you feel that PEA are in the wrong... hopefully people read this
In my opinion, this entire debacle is crazy stupid, and I can see us being in this same position for a very long time. CnG wants PEA to face consequences for their actions, and PEA's allies won't talk peace until PEA gets peace, and likewise for CnG and allies...

[Bob Janova]

[quote]Your hypocrisy lies in the fact that you involve yourself in the same actions while decrying them.[/quote]
Saying it doesn't make it true. In case you don't get it, 'manipulating public opinion' is not what I'm decrying (that's the entire purpose of anybody posting here). So as I said before, if you're going to call me a hypocrite you'll have to point out where I supported the sort of cynical front manipulation and playing the victim that I'm criticising. I'm sure you won't be able to, because (like a pre-emptive attack of this kind) the situation has not come up before.

I suppose you could turn up where I supported a pre-emptive attack based on an alliance's expected entry as a counter-attacker, but I doubt you'll be able to find that either, because it's clearly a stupid move and I don't generally support those.

[quote]TOP/IRON are trapped by their commitment to white peace[/quote]
Ah, apologies, my wording was not clear. What I meant was that after finding out about the expected pre-emptive entry, C&G laid a trap for their entry into the war – i.e. they are only fighting on this front because of a trap, not that they are currently trapped in the war. Although I would say that this front should have peaced out originally at the same time as the others, it is not realistic to expect a white peace at this point – C&G have clearly showed that they wanted to turn this into a Supergrievances vs ex-Hegemony war, they have done that and they are going to win, and they will impose some terms.

[mrcalkin]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 12:13 PM' timestamp='1266516786' post='2189905']
If they were really interested in peace, and didn't want them and their allies to be in a damaging war, this question answers itself. By informing TOP, the second half of the war would have been avoided.


If they were rea– wait, I just typed that. If they wanted to manipulate the situation to give themselves an advantage in rolling TOP and IRON, then sure. But that makes them as cynical as TOP and IRON and therefore they shouldn't be trying to claim the moral high ground.

Your post is an extremely good utilitarian explanation of why C&G manipulated the war and are now trying to fake the victim position to manipulate public opinion as well. So thanks for that


Isn't that [i]exactly[/i] TOP/IRON's reasoning for declaring on them in the first place?


That's not what Archon said:



You're not really making a point there. Nobody is claiming you declared on them. (That name is stupid, by the way. I motion we call the alliances on this front 'PEA', for Pre-Emptive Attackers.) But you did know that they were coming and laid a huge trap for them.


I've said in almost every post that TOP and IRON are in the wrong as well. I'm not really sure where this idea that I am supporting everything they have done is coming from. Well actually I do, it's the C&G propaganda crew on a discrediting mission. Obviously I'm stronger in my criticism of C&G because 90% of the posters here are completely behind the C&G line and really there is no need for another person to be loudly critical of TOP and IRON.

Edit:

IRON were a direct mandated defender of TPF, who were jumped in an aggressive war over a dubious and ancient reason. TOP's participation in that coalition can't reasonably be called escalatory, particularly considering Supergrievances went around collecting allies to join them in that aggressive war.
[/quote]

Even if I believe the war was inevitable, I still find the manner of entry of TOP and IRON into the war completely unpalatable. I have never been a fan of the oft-repeated desire of many to see CBs like "because we can" or "because we think they are a threat" and I think that is probably the stem of my dissatisfaction with your argument that CnG has been equally cynical. That said, I think the throwing around of the idea that the members of CnG really desire peace is counter-productive and slightly manipulative, but there are very few parties who I have ever witnessed that didn't try to take advantage of image and morality in major wars, and there is no way I would claim CnG are more guilty than any party arguing back and forth about this war. I do have an inkling that MK or the rest of CnG would never have been pompous enough to pull anything close to what TOP did, and instead would have waited until treaty activations made it reality. Maybe I am being too utilitarian, but that's the way I have always tried to look at this game (at least when I am not raging), and it seems to make perfect sense

I realize you have said TOP & IRON are in the wrong, but its definitely not the chief message you have been pushing. To me, it seems instead you are focusing on your belief that CnG were equally in the wrong for wanting this war to begin with, and this is what I disagree with. Wanting a war and actively making a war happen are very different things. When I was alliance gov, there were countless times I wished for a war, countless times my alliance wished for war, yet very few times did these wars ever materialize. We even ended up reconciling naturally with some of the alliances that had been perceived threats or had been perceived as wronging us, but never once did we consider taking an aggressive stance and pushing directly for the war (and as a long-time Citadel gov member, you probably remember this was a frequently stated ideal between nearly everyone in the bloc until recently). I think you are incorrect in your belief that the government and membership of MK would have made the war a reality of their own accord, even if some, half, or even most wished for it.

I think in this stage of the game, where, in general, most hold the belief that you must hold true to your allies no matter what, and with the general hostility between both parties, that there was really no avoiding less scrupulous alliances than MK or TOP from escalating the two into war at some point. I cannot fault either alliance for not canceling their treaties ahead of time to avoid this, since I can really see no way that would not be perceived as a strategic blunder by either side. Even if war had been avoided this time, and even if it would have come in the future assuredly, I do not believe this justifies taking an opportunity to attack someone in such an aggressive manner (the tone of the DoW cannot be described in any other way) nor do I believe CnG's insistence on not trying to end the war immediately is equally wrong as the initial DoW. I do agree with you that it might have been equally cynical, but overall, I think cynicism is the name of the game here most of the time.

Sorry I am rambling at this point, just trying to somehow explain my belief that CnG is less wrong in keeping TOP at war for a little while given the circumstances leading up to the war and the initial DoW itself and that it is putting too much obligation on CnG to claim they should have gone out of their way to alert an alliance ready to bear down on them and rub them out that their perceived partners in the war were about to exit would have been a glaring strategical misstep on CnG's part. When the intent was known, CnG became somewhat obligated to make sure they would not become a smoking hole 2, 3 or 6 months down the line should TOP have somehow maneuvered the situation against them in the near future (not like it would have been the first time something like that happened).

Man, I really need to work on conciseness.

[Scorbolt]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 11:54 AM' timestamp='1266519244' post='2189975']
Saying it doesn't make it true. In case you don't get it, 'manipulating public opinion' is not what I'm decrying (that's the entire purpose of anybody posting here).
[/quote]

The wording of your post strongly suggested that you were criticizing us for manipulating public opinion and playing the victim. I would be fully justified to call you a hypocrite for that - I was just looking at the words you wrote.

Also, I fully believe you are facilitating PEA's 'playing the victim' while continuing to criticize us for the same thing. It wasn't a baseless attack Bob. Maybe I misinterpreted your post/intentions but then again maybe I didn't.

[quote]So as I said before, if you're going to call me a hypocrite you'll have to point out where I supported the sort of cynical front manipulation and playing the victim that I'm criticising. I'm sure you won't be able to, because (like a pre-emptive attack of this kind) the situation has not come up before.[/quote]

xD

[Bob Janova]

PEA aren't playing the victim (are they?).

Mrcalkin: another excellent post. I don't think the general membership of either side of this front really wanted this war. Certainly from talking with some TOPpers they didn't agree with the decision, as early as the first day of the front. The leadership of both sides (and those in the two coalitions that aren't on this front, like SF and NpO) takes the responsibility for letting it happen. Both sides had the opportunity to ensure that the front did not happen, and chose not to take it, so they both made sure that it actually did happen. TOP and IRON did so in a more overt and poorly judged fashion, to be sure, but I'm not sure that that makes them more wrong.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='18 February 2010 - 01:51 AM' timestamp='1266479483' post='2189271']
The DoW stated that they were attacking with no CB. Someone who thinks it's acceptable to attack you without a CB, is likely to do it again in the future.[/quote]

The DoW actually gave a CB, just because you disagree with the CB does not mean there was no CB. in fact, 2 reasons are given not just one but one was given the dominant position over the other. so, this point is false as there was a CB given in the DoW.


[quote]If harsh reps pay or not on the long run is matter for another debate. The only thing I point here is that the longer this conflict resembles, both in lenght and damage, to the Karma War, the more likely reps will resemble those imposed over the NPO.[/quote]

and the more likely that CnG will allow the prophesy to be self-fulfilled by making TOP/IRON far more hostile towards them than they currently are (or aren't one could argue).


[quote]I agree with the first part. About the second, I acknowelde it's a viable strategy, through not necessary the best course of action. Anyway, will be CnG's decission.[/quote]

i can agree with the fact that it is CnG's decision.


[quote]Just for the record, MK and CnG aren't the only ones fighting this war. And in this same thread, some people involved has expressed that they actually care about the community standards.

On the other hand, there is a big difference between trying to dictate community standards to be followed by third parties in their relations, and trying to dictate community standards regarding how others threat you and you allies. I mean, messing in the affairs of others could be considered acting like a World Police, but defending yourself and your allies is not.[/quote]

well, the only reason i stated CnG was mostly due to this thread being centered around their thoughts on this war and no one else's. thus, the others involved matter little given that this topic is CnG's mindset on the war.

as for the second paragraph, dictating community standards is dictating community standards. regardless of how you put it, you are wanting to dictate community standards to a third party which according to the first part of your sentence seems to be wrong. defending yourself and your allies is not wrong, but given the huge uproar over Polaris in the Polar-\m/ war, it seems that dictating community standards to anyone is wrong and considered acting as the world police.



[quote]Right now I only remember the TPF war at New Year's Eve. This was a war with a full valid CB: spionage. So the comparation doesn't apply.[/quote]

actually espionage was never proven and in fact, more evidence was provided that countered that any espionage ever took place than was ever given that espionage did in fact take place. thus, the CB's for both wars were essentially the same "we see the enemy (be it TPF or CnG) as a threat" and a preemptive strike took place. both sides used evidence that was essentially months old (TPF did something in the Karma War and TOP took evidence from the posts/attitudes of CnG towards TOP from the Karma war to present). so they are quite comparable. the difference is TPF/Co allowed white peace whereas CnG won't.



[quote]So, need further proof that something is wrong about your stance?
[/quote]

what proof have you actually offered? you have yet to actually provide anything that has countered my points. i would suggest you partake in less smug and more fact-finding in the future. while i may be making assumptions, my assumptions are based in what has been said by CnG gov members including Archon (on behalf of CnG in the OP as well). you on the other hand have not provided much evidence to support your claims other than your say so.

[quote name='popsumpot' date='18 February 2010 - 02:28 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]

if you are talking about the Polar-\m/ war- it seems that peace was already made and no reps were wanted by \m/. so as i have stated before, it is up to those who are defending. mind you \m/ did not pay reps to FoA for their war of aggression against FoA and neither did PC or GOONS. so trying to point out Polaris is absurd as you are missing much. Then there is also Athens/GOD/RoK/\m/ not paying reps in the TPF war either (though that one is a bit more mixed up given the lack of evidence to support the CB of espionage but a clear intention of TPF trying to actively harm Athens during the Karma War amongst other issues that have been discussed to death during that time period).

so there is no real history of paying reps for aggression unless the aggressor looses.

[quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 02:31 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]

given the fact that TOP are unwilling to surrender at this point in time needs to be pointed out. it seems that white peace is the only surrender acceptable (and this may not be true so correct me if i am wrong, this is just what i have gathered) to TOP/IRON. so regardless of CnG, TOP won't surrender at this juncture so to somehow state that CnG is fully to blame for the continuance of this war is absurd and false. TOP/co is as much to fault for the continuance of this war as CnG are. so that means that because TOP/Co won't end this war in a way that is acceptable to CnG means they maintain the offensive (given your description of it) and CnG maintain the defensive. Now if TOP/Co stated that they would be willing to pay out heavy reps (including tech) and to undergo some other lengthy terms and CnG continued the war regardless of that willingness, you may actually have a point. since at this point in time, TOP/Co will only take a white peace your point is invalid as TOP/Co initiated the aggressive act and are attempting to conduct how they will surrender, thus they are in no way feeling they are losing this war and thus by their own actions have placed themselves on the offensive versus the defensive. An alliance who is on the defensive is losing and has rarely attempted to dictate their own terms of surrender (only time to my knowledge is the Orders during the GPW).

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='18 February 2010 - 06:48 AM' timestamp='1266497313' post='2189565']
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.
[/quote]

read the section just above your quote for why you are wrong.

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 01:30 PM' timestamp='1266496247' post='2189548']
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]

No. They pressured to peace out so they could stand against the agression that TOP/IRON started. TOP started the war, you can't arge that they didn't want the war.

On the other hand, if TOP/IRON wanted just to help NpO in his war, explain me why they didn't coordinated at all with NpO, and why they launched their agression just when peace talks where about to reach a satisfactory end.

Of course, the easy argument here is "treachery!" and "blame the Order!". However, from my perspective, looks like TOP/IRON didn't care a damn about NpO. They just rushed to exploit the opening in CnG, totally ignoring NpO's war goals. As a result, they found themselves outmanouvered when the NpO fulfilled his goals and thus called the troops home on the eve of TOP's agression.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 01:30 PM' timestamp='1266496247' post='2189548']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]

Wich is not a valid CB. Unless you are willing to accept that the japanese attack on Peral Harbor and the german invasion of the Soviet Union had a valid Casus Belli - to name just two well-known examples.

Also, TOP acknowelded in their DoW that they were attacking CnG mainly out of spite. That trumps any attemp to dignify their war of agression by linking it to the NpO-\m/ war.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 07:13 PM' timestamp='1266516786' post='2189905']
If they were rea– wait, I just typed that. If they wanted to manipulate the situation to give themselves an advantage in rolling TOP and IRON, then sure. But that makes them as cynical as TOP and IRON and therefore they shouldn't be trying to claim the moral high ground.

Your post is an extremely good utilitarian explanation of why C&G manipulated the war and are now trying to fake the victim position to manipulate public opinion as well. So thanks for that
[/quote]

So, your stance is that CnG learned that TOP/IRON were about to gang upon them, and so hurried up to maneuver in order to face them with an advantage?

I don't find it to be a morally despicable behaviour.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Krashnaia

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='18 February 2010 - 03:00 PM' timestamp='1266526803' post='2190168']
Wich is not a valid CB. Unless you are willing to accept that the japanese attack on Peral Harbor and the german invasion of the Soviet Union had a valid Casus Belli - to name just two well-known examples.

Also, TOP acknowelded in their DoW that they were attacking CnG mainly out of spite. That trumps any attemp to dignify their war of agression by linking it to the NpO-\m/ war.
[/quote]

OOC: enough with the WWII analogies. Japan felt that they had a clear CB against the US considering that the US had cut off vital supplies to Japan (oil, steel, etc) thus, Japan would either have to go to war or give up. since giving up is not in the Japanese vocabulary, they went to war. the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was an attempt to knock the US out of the war early on to ensure an easier time taking the Pacific.

as for Germany, that is completely different. 1) Germany broke their non-aggression pact against Russia during a time when Russia could not have been seen as a threat (Germany to their front and Japan to their rear both of whom are allied to one another). 2) US had not entered the war and Germany was severely trouncing Europe. 3) with point #2 comes the fact that Russia signed a NAP with Germany to ensure that Russia would not be attacked (Russia would also sign a NAP with Japan to ensure their rear is protected)

so what Germany did was because Hitler wanted more land for the excess amount of Germans in Germany as well as the vital resources along that front to help fuel his war machine.

Japan did it for essentially the same reasons TOP did both of which are valid CBs since surprise attacks is a strategy that many nations/armies have employed since humans started fighting one another. (technically it is also a great hunting tactic as you do not announce yourself to your prey before you attempt to shoot it...)