Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[Bob Janova]

[quote]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[/quote]
You mean, like by discussing the plan in their coalition channel and clearing it with Polar first?

[quote]NpO fulfilled his goals and thus called the troops home on the eve of TOP's agression.[/quote]
This is just outright false. The NpO front peaced out 45 minutes [b]after[/b] TOP and IRON entered. If that front had been peaced out before, or if anyone (NpO or C&G) communicated to TOP and IRON that it was about to be, the PEA-C&G front would not have been opened.

[quote]TOP started the war, you can't arge that they didn't want the war. [/quote]
TOP did not start the war, NpO did.

Edit: I don't see a nation or alliance called 'Japan' or 'Soviet Union'. The communist drama was 3 years ago. [OOC: RL analogies are dumb.]

Edited February 18, 2010 by Bob Janova

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='18 February 2010 - 10:08 PM' timestamp='1266527329' post='2190187']
OOC: enough with the WWII analogies.
(...)
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...)[/quote]

So, basically, you have wrote that the japanese stroke the US at Pearl Harbor because they were a threat to Japan's plans for imperialistic and agressive militar expansion through Asia and the Pacific basin.

Wich is true, but still is not a valid reason to go to war. The same goes for the hunting analogy.

Unless you think about Planet Bob as a Jungle were everyone is hunting everyone.

I personally prefer to think about Planet Bob as a place that, if not civilized, at least strives to be so.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]I personally prefer to think about Planet Bob as a place that, if not civilized, at least strives to be so. [/quote]
So you're supporting the \m/ side in this war why?

[StevieG]

[quote name='Gn0xious Jr' date='19 February 2010 - 03:08 AM' timestamp='1266505695' post='2189659']
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.
[/quote]
Again, you are not thinking objectively at all. C&G and friends were in fact an immediate threat, as you cannot deny that they would have gotten involved. It might have been a silly and unprecedente move on TOP an cos part, but it was not just paranoia as a lot of you claim.

As to your analogy. More like a few of my mates are having a bit of a punch up with a few of yours. Me and a few friends are considering going in to help, but we can also see that you have more mates across the road, which vastly outnumber us, who are [s]waiting[/s]prepared to get involved. So a few of us decide to jump over there real quick, maybe gain a few knock outs so that the advantage you had will no longer be. Adding to this, this punch up all started when a few of or mates a bit further up the road came upon a few of your mates attacking a guy who was alone, and decided to get involved.

[quote name='neneko' date='19 February 2010 - 05:27 AM' timestamp='1266514069' post='2189827']
The fact that TOP stated in their DoW that the polar-\m/ conflict wasn't their main reason to go to war suggests otherwise.
[/quote]
Really? I always thought that order of importance followed a sequential patern throughout an OP.

EDIT: changed wording to be a bit more objective

Edited February 18, 2010 by StevieG

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 10:30 PM' timestamp='1266528604' post='2190234']
You mean, like by discussing the plan in their coalition channel and clearing it with Polar first?[/quote]

Or by caring to ask about how peace talks were going. Specially right before launching the attack.

I could use the same suspiction-based logic you are resorting to, and arge that maybe [b]TOP/IRON [i]knew[/i] about the peace talks, and that's why they rushed to the attack in order to prevent white peace and forcing the NpO to keep fighting.[/b] But, of course, I have no material proof to back this up, beyond resorting to speculation. Neither you have proof to back up your accusations against CnG.

Please note that [b]I'm not actually resorting to this argument to blame TOP. I don't even think it's true.[/b] I've just wrote this to give you an example of why you shouldn't resort to the same logic to judge CnG's actions.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 10:30 PM' timestamp='1266528604' post='2190234']
This is just outright false. The NpO front peaced out 45 minutes [b]after[/b] TOP and IRON entered. If that front had been peaced out before, or if anyone (NpO or C&G) communicated to TOP and IRON that it was about to be, the PEA-C&G front would not have been opened.[/quote]

46 minutes, specifically (5:47 -> TOP DoW, 6:33 -> NpO white peace). So both events were happening more or less at the same time. Maybe my choice of words was not correct to express this view, but english is not my native language and I barely master it.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 10:30 PM' timestamp='1266528604' post='2190234']TOP did not start the war, NpO did.[/quote]

This is the point were further debate is useless, since we diverge in a very basic reality.

I view the NpO-\m/ conflict and the current TOP-CnG one as two separate wars, since the motivations behind them are not the same:
- NpO-\m/ was very much an Ego affair. They fought over to have a point acknowelded by their opponent, and came to halt when the war was no longer funny.
- TOP-CnG war is, on the other hand, a power struggle.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Krashnaia

[delendum]

[quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 09:39 PM' timestamp='1266529145' post='2190261']
Again, you are not thinking objectively at all. C&G and friends were in fact an immediate threat, as you cannot deny that they would have gotten involved. It might have been a silly and unprecedente move on TOP an cos part, but it was not just paranoia as a lot of you claim.

As to your analogy. More like a few of my mates are having a bit of a punch up with a few of yours. Me and a few friends are considering going in to help, but we can also see that you have more mates across the road, which vastly outnumber us, who are [s]waiting[/s]prepared to get involved. So a few of us decide to jump over there real quick, maybe gain a few knock outs so that the advantage you had will no longer be. Adding to this, this punch up all started when a few of or mates a bit further up the road came upon a few of your mates attacking a guy who was alone, and decided to get involved.


Really? I always thought that order of importance followed a sequential patern throughout an OP.

EDIT: changed wording to be a bit more objective
[/quote]

Haha way to spin it there. When TOP stated that they see us as a threat, it had nothing to do with the war.

[Gn0xious Jr]

[quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 01:39 PM' timestamp='1266529145' post='2190261']
Again, you are not thinking objectively at all. C&G and friends were in fact an immediate threat, as you cannot deny that they would have gotten involved. It might have been a silly and unprecedente move on TOP an cos part, but it was not just paranoia as a lot of you claim.
[/quote]

PEA looked at the treaties, saw that regardless of HOW they entered the NpO-\m/ conflict that CnG would be bound by treaties to defend and counter. Rather than follow this path, out of fear/paranoia that the road would lead here eventually, they decided to just go balls out and attack CnG who was not involved in the conflict. The real pisser, is that PEA thought they had a slam dunk - closed case victory on their hands, and ended up biting of more than they could chew. There is NO WAY that CnG would have DoW'd on anyone without a valid reason. TOP organized the PEA front as an "indirect" support to NpO, though the main purpose was to defeat CnG.

The biggest complaint I've seen on the PEA front is the decision to preemptively attack.
The biggest complaint I've seen on the CnG front, is that there was preparation against the preemptive attack, and that our allies came to our defense.

In other words,
the PEA is wrong for aggressively attacking non-combatants
CnG is wrong for defending against an ACTUAL threat, seeing as how there was an actual aggressive act against CnG by the PEA.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]
I could use the same suspiction-based logic you are resorting to, and arge that maybe TOP/IRON knew about the peace talks, and that's why they rushed to the attack in order to prevent white peace and forcing the NpO to keep fighting. But, of course, I have no material proof to back up this up, beyond resorting to speculation. Neither you have to back up your accusations against CnG.[/quote]
I certainly do. Archon states in the OP that he (and therefore C&G) knew about the attacks and that made him step up pressure to peace out the other fronts.

[quote]I view the NpO-\m/ conflict and the current TOP-CnG one as two separate wars, since the motivations behind them are not the same.[/quote]
Despite TOP stating that they entered as part of the coalition in their DoW, and discussing the attack with their coalition, and running it past NpO. They chose the [i]target[/i] (C&G) based on other reasons (though how much of the infamous statement is TOP and how much Crymson is unclear), but that doesn't change the fact that they were entering a pre-existing war. Don't forget that four alliances declared ... taking just that one sentence by Crymson to represent the reasoning is not really fair.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='18 February 2010 - 03:35 PM' timestamp='1266528902' post='2190247']
So, basically, you have wrote that the japanese stroke the US at Pearl Harbor because they were a threat to Japan's plans for imperialistic and agressive militar expansion through Asia and the Pacific basin.

Wich is true, but still is not a valid reason to go to war. The same goes for the hunting analogy.

Unless you think about Planet Bob as a Jungle were everyone is hunting everyone.

I personally prefer to think about Planet Bob as a place that, if not civilized, at least strives to be so.
[/quote]

ooc: i was stating that in RL that is the case. i never mentioned CN. hence why i told you to stop with WWII analogies as they are irrelevant to CN as you cannot draw an exact analogy whatsoever. the precedents and norms in CN are drastically different than in RL. (take nukes for example)

[StevieG]

[quote name='delendum' date='19 February 2010 - 09:48 AM' timestamp='1266529719' post='2190280']
Haha way to spin it there. When TOP stated that they see us as a threat, it had nothing to do with the war.
[/quote]
Way to point out your argument. I do not make spin, I say it as I see it, and try to be as objective as possible. Your last sentence there holds no factual basis whatsoever. Or maybe that is just paranoia on your part

[i]For our part, however, much our reason to enter this war lies in our desire to defeat those who have shown time and time again, in public and in private, that doing harm to us is high on their agenda---and that, indeed, they would take advantage of any advantageous opportunity to do so. This is a war they have brought upon themselves.[/i]

This reasoning is simple. Once Iron and Top go in on the side of NSO and NpO, C&G will take that opportunity to harm TOP. So we bring the war to your front steps for tactical reasons. There was also admitedly a bit of paranoia as in seing C&G as a threat, but that is hardly the sole reason for war, in fact it it was a small extra i believe. Get your facts straight.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Scorbolt' date='18 February 2010 - 01:39 PM' timestamp='1266518357' post='2189946']
TOP/IRON may well trapped by their commitment to white peace. Working on mutually agreeable terms is impossible in the face of such stubbornness.
[/quote]
I seem to remember negotiating a peace settlement with an Orange alliance once. Said Orange alliance initially insisted on a white peace after having launched an unprovoked attack, decimating the upper tier of its opponent.

I - and some other diplomats - got that alliance to agree to pay reps. However that wasn't in the starting position.

That alliance was yours.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1266530603' post='2190319']
Despite TOP stating that they entered as part of the coalition in their DoW, and discussing the attack with their coalition, and running it past NpO. They chose the [i]target[/i] (C&G) based on other reasons (though how much of the infamous statement is TOP and how much Crymson is unclear), but that doesn't change the fact that they were entering a pre-existing war. Don't forget that four alliances declared ... taking just that one sentence by Crymson to represent the reasoning is not really fair.
[/quote]
Come on Bob, you really can't say there exists a "Crymson Exception" when Polar was rolled for Sponge calling TOP .gov names.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 04:03 PM' timestamp='1266530603' post='2190319']
Despite TOP stating that they entered as part of the coalition in their DoW, and discussing the attack with their coalition, and running it past NpO. They chose the [i]target[/i] (C&G) based on other reasons [b](though how much of the infamous statement is TOP and how much Crymson is unclear)[/b], but that doesn't change the fact that they were entering a pre-existing war. Don't forget that four alliances declared ... [i]taking just that one sentence by Crymson to represent the reasoning is not really fair.[/i]
[/quote]

in all honesty, it does not matter as it was on an official TOP DoW that had other gov signatures on it. thus, regardless of whether you want to state that it was all Crymson and whatnot, that is false since TOP gov signed off on it. thus, the only supportable conclusion is it is all of TOP since the TOP gov signed off on the DoW.

the precedent within CN is that the alliance pays for the mistakes of its leaders and this time, you have a DoW that states that TOP wants to harm CnG signed off by other TOP gov.

do not forget Bob that much of the reason that Gremlins fought Polaris was ES stating that he "wanted to dance on your graves" and you found that valid despite that sentiment not being endorsed by the vast majority of gov within Polaris. i cannot see how you can say that italicized line with a straight face at all. seriously.

[Gn0xious Jr]

[quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 02:07 PM' timestamp='1266530861' post='2190326']
[i]For our part, however, much our reason to enter this war lies in our desire to defeat those who have shown time and time again, in public and in private, that doing harm to us is high on their agenda---and that, indeed, they would take advantage of any advantageous opportunity to do so. This is a war they have brought upon themselves.[/i][/quote]
I fail to see where the above states that the PEA DoW in Defense of OR in Aggression WITH NpO. This reads, pretty clearly, that they see CnG as a threat, and look to defeat CnG.
[quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 02:07 PM' timestamp='1266530861' post='2190326']
This reasoning is simple. Once Iron and Top go in on the side of NSO and NpO, C&G will take that opportunity to harm TOP. So we bring the war to your front steps for tactical reasons. There was also admitedly a bit of paranoia as in seing C&G as a threat, but that is hardly the sole reason for war, in fact it it was a small extra i believe. Get your facts straight.
[/quote]
As I stated, it is pretty clear that the PEA ran through the treaties, felt that conflict with CnG would be inevitable as the PEA's aid to NpO's aggression would trigger defensive treaties. Thus, they skipped all that and decided to take an opportunity to defeat CnG (uninovled with the current conflict at that time) as illustrated by the snippit from the DoW you quoted.

Poor decision by the PEA
Bad CnG for defending herself, BAD

[Bob Janova]

Two posts making long arguments against a parenthesised clause that really doesn't affect the thrust of my post.

Gnoxious, when you make a clear statement that you understand the reason for the pre-emption, and for why it's part of the same war, I have to check your AA . The DoW says that they consider themselves part of the Polar side, which covers 'I fail to see where the above states that the PEA DoW in Defense of OR in Aggression WITH NpO' – they didn't come in on a treaty, they came in outside obligations (as many others did) to support them (in a poor way of course).

[Heft]

The hell is PEA?

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 10:38 PM' timestamp='1266529133' post='2190259']
So you're supporting the \m/ side in this war why?
[/quote]

We are not discussing tech-raiding here. Neither I'm "supporting the \m/ side". I'm supporting CnG in their defensive war against an unprovocked agression.

Anyway I find tech-raiding to be way more civilized than launching a massive all-out nuclear agression.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Krashnaia

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='mrcalkin' date='19 February 2010 - 02:49 AM' timestamp='1266511786' post='2189782']
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?
[/quote]
Simple - the incentive to do so was there if they had genuinely wanted to avoid an escalation of the Polar-\m/ war, as claimed. If Grub had wanted to avoid an escalation of the war, he could have done the same thing too - in fact he was far better placed to do so than Archon was.

It's quite obvious to me that the preference seems to have been for the escalation of that conflict into a stupidly destructive global war. Which, incidentally, has been loads of fun to fight in I might add

[Haflinger]

Heft, PEA is the TOP-IRON-DAWN-TORN coalition.

[Gn0xious Jr]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 02:16 PM' timestamp='1266531396' post='2190350']
Gnoxious, when you make a clear statement that you understand the reason for the pre-emption, and for why it's part of the same war, I have to check your AA . The DoW says that they consider themselves part of the Polar side, which covers 'I fail to see where the above states that the PEA DoW in Defense of OR in Aggression WITH NpO' – they didn't come in on a treaty, they came in outside obligations (as many others did) to support them (in a poor way of course).
[/quote]
my apologies, i read the quoted portion as evidence to them joining on the side of NpO, which I was not understanding. The DoW did state that they agreed with NpO's position, and consider themselves on that side of the conflict. So that does clear up them declaring in aggression with NpO.
Same war, NEW separate front.

I agree with the sentiment that it was a poor choice in how to support.

[Scorbolt]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='18 February 2010 - 03:07 PM' timestamp='1266530878' post='2190327']
I seem to remember negotiating a peace settlement with an Orange alliance once. Said Orange alliance initially insisted on a white peace after having launched an unprovoked attack, decimating the upper tier of its opponent.

I - and some other diplomats - got that alliance to agree to pay reps. However that wasn't in the starting position.

That alliance was yours.
[/quote]

Unprovoked? That is debatable.

My alliance at the time however was PAIN. Who if you recall was preemptively attacked by the Legion - and then forced to pay reps.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='18 February 2010 - 05:07 PM' timestamp='1266530878' post='2190327']
I seem to remember negotiating a peace settlement with an Orange alliance once. Said Orange alliance initially insisted on a white peace after having launched an unprovoked attack, decimating the upper tier of its opponent.

I - and some other diplomats - got that alliance to agree to pay reps. However that wasn't in the starting position.

That alliance was yours.
[/quote]
Unprovoked my $@!. Legion attacked Universals.

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 11:03 PM' timestamp='1266530603' post='2190319']
I certainly do. Archon states in the OP that he (and therefore C&G) knew about the attacks and that made him step up pressure to peace out the other fronts.[/quote]

Wich is not "cynical manipulation to drag TOP/IRON into war", but rather plain common sense in order to improve their chances to sucesfully defend against the incoming agression.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 11:03 PM' timestamp='1266530603' post='2190319']Despite TOP stating that they entered as part of the coalition in their DoW, and discussing the attack with their coalition, and running it past NpO. They chose the [i]target[/i] (C&G) based on other reasons (though how much of the infamous statement is TOP and how much Crymson is unclear), but that doesn't change the fact that they were entering a pre-existing war. Don't forget that four alliances declared ... taking just that one sentence by Crymson to represent the reasoning is not really fair.
[/quote]

They didn't entered a pre-existing war since they didn't declared on anyone fighting in the previous war.

They didn't also declared to back up NpO's motivations, but due to their own motivations. That's why this war has gone beyond the previous one, because it has different motivations, a different nature.

[StevieG]

[quote name='Gn0xious Jr' date='19 February 2010 - 10:13 AM' timestamp='1266531203' post='2190341']
I fail to see where the above states that the PEA DoW in Defense of OR in Aggression WITH NpO. This reads, pretty clearly, that they see CnG as a threat, and look to defeat CnG.[/quote]

Because the part of the DoW that stated they were joining in on NpOs side came prior. They did see C&G as a threat to them and beleived C&G were after them. It is clear that this is one of he reasons for war.

As for looking to defeat C&G? Well naturally when you are at war with someone you look to defeat them. Were they looking to defeat C&G before this war, for the sole reasonof C%G being a threat to them? No, I dont belive so.

[quote name='Gn0xious Jr']
As I stated, it is pretty clear that the PEA ran through the treaties, felt that conflict with CnG would be inevitable as the PEA's aid to NpO's aggression would trigger defensive treaties. Thus, they skipped all that and decided to take an opportunity to defeat CnG (uninovled with the current conflict at that time) as illustrated by the snippit from the DoW you quoted.[/quote]

Yes, they took pre-emptive aggresive action in joining in on NpOs side of the war in an attempt to nuetralise a major component in the opposite coalition.

There are many aspects of this war that are debatable, and whether a unprecedented(for the most part) action such as a pre-emptive strike is morally and even tactically wrong or not. But the above paragraph is most certainly not, as it is 100% unspinable fact.

[Tomcat]

TOP and IRON didn't know about the peace talks that had been going on for an entire week straight because TOP and IRON didn't care about the peace talks. They just wanted an opportunity to attack CnG.

Was it PEA's obligation to inform CnG that they were going to attack them? I think we can all agree here that they had no obligation to give them advanced warning of the attack.

So, if the PEA had no obligation to warn CnG of the attack, then why would CnG have any obligation to warn them about the attack being a bad decision?

You didn't warn them about the upcoming war, so why would they warn you about the upcoming peace?