Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[Bob Janova]

I have never claimed the pre-emptive attack was a defensive action ... obviously it is not.

[astronaut jones]

[quote name='scutterbug' date='19 February 2010 - 02:05 PM' timestamp='1266588359' post='2191971']
TOP attacking C&G is relevant to that spin how? yeah figured as much, fail spin is once again fail.
[/quote]

No, he's correct in a sense, but so are you. What he said holds true up until the attack on CnG, but there was no logical reason to attack CnG outside of "seemed like a good idea at the time"

[Tulafaras]

[quote name='arentak' date='19 February 2010 - 02:49 PM' timestamp='1266587377' post='2191954']
NSO joined with Polar against the \m/ side. \m/'s allies didn't want to give NSO peace. IRON wasn't going to let NSO burn alone. TOP wasn't going to let IRON burn. Its all one war.
[/quote]
That is actually incorrect. The NSO front was in the process of declaring peace all around when the NSO decided to "counter-declare" in defense of IRON and the whole front started up again.
If IRON had not entered the war (on a completly unrelated front) peace would have been declared within 24 hours of the NpO \m/ peace (the timeframe would have been needed because FARK did not have the entire council online to vote).
We (as in GOD) were already under orders to cease fire and our goverment was working on getting the entire front sorted out.

Don't try to say that you joined the war to help NSO, if so you could have joined days earlier against GoD and FARK instead of this whole mess.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Tulafaras' date='19 February 2010 - 10:02 AM' timestamp='1266591750' post='2192018']
That is actually incorrect. The NSO front was in the process of declaring peace all around when the NSO decided to "counter-declare" in defense of IRON and the whole front started up again.
If IRON had not entered the war (on a completly unrelated front) peace would have been declared within 24 hours of the NpO \m/ peace (the timeframe would have been needed because FARK did not have the entire council online to vote).
We (as in GOD) were already under orders to cease fire and our goverment was working on getting the entire front sorted out.

Don't try to say that you joined the war to help NSO, if so you could have joined days earlier against GoD and FARK instead of this whole mess.
[/quote]
No.

Fark would not accept peace with NSO, which ran counter to every other theater of war ongoing or ending at the time. I was told that NSO would not get peace from Fark from Randomly Jim. After the counter declaration it was stated that peace could be achieved only if NSO surrendered to Fark.

Continuing to state something that is patently false will not make it true, regardless of how many times you state it.

[Lennox]

[quote name='arentak' date='19 February 2010 - 08:49 AM' timestamp='1266587377' post='2191954']
NSO joined with Polar against the \m/ side. \m/'s allies didn't want to give NSO peace. IRON wasn't going to let NSO burn alone. TOP wasn't going to let IRON burn. Its all one war.
[/quote]

Your facts are not accurate.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='19 February 2010 - 10:06 AM' timestamp='1266592010' post='2192021']
No.

Fark would not accept peace with NSO, which ran counter to every other theater of war ongoing or ending at the time. I was told that NSO would not get peace from Fark from Randomly Jim. After the counter declaration it was stated that peace could be achieved only if NSO surrendered to Fark.

Continuing to state something that is patently false will not make it true, regardless of how many times you state it.
[/quote]


[quote name='Lennox' date='19 February 2010 - 10:08 AM' timestamp='1266592084' post='2192023']
Your facts are not accurate.
[/quote]
So which is it boys?

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='flak attack' date='19 February 2010 - 10:19 AM' timestamp='1266592797' post='2192032']
So which is it boys?
[/quote]
What are you talking about? He quoted a different comment from me so I fail to see how that even makes sense.

I personally believe he meant that NSO joined to defend Polar against FOK, not against \m/ or to be against \m/ as we stated from the beginning that we didn't care for the moralist crusade aspect.

Or he could be talking about IRON not wishing to see NSO burn alone since we did state that we thought their plan was a bad idea and as their allies were ignored. But meh.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Ivan Moldavi

[neneko]

[quote name='arentak' date='19 February 2010 - 02:49 PM' timestamp='1266587377' post='2191954']
NSO joined with Polar against the \m/ side. \m/'s allies didn't want to give NSO peace. IRON wasn't going to let NSO burn alone. TOP wasn't going to let IRON burn. Its all one war.
[/quote]
Way to fact check your post there. NSO was offered peace both before and after IRONs brilliant entry to the war. NSO refused peace after because they wanted to stick around for IRON to get peace. Both IRON and TOP entered by declaring on alliances uninvolved with NSO (or anyone else for that matter) so your spin doesn't even make sense. NSO is in this war in defense of IRON not the other way around. If it wasn't for TIFDTTs brilliant tacticians NSO would be eating cookies and pooping rainbows right now.

[Gn0xious Jr]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='19 February 2010 - 06:43 AM' timestamp='1266590636' post='2192002']
I have never claimed the pre-emptive attack was a defensive action ... obviously it is not.
[/quote]
sorry bob, not directed at you, but just reiterating my personal feelings on it. i need to practice separating out my posts better...

[Mussolandia]

[quote name='neneko' date='19 February 2010 - 03:41 PM' timestamp='1266594081' post='2192057']
Way to fact check your post there. NSO was offered peace both before and after IRONs brilliant entry to the war. NSO refused peace after because they wanted to stick around for IRON to get peace. Both IRON and TOP entered by declaring on alliances uninvolved with NSO (or anyone else for that matter) so your spin doesn't even make sense. NSO is in this war in defense of IRON not the other way around. If it wasn't for TIFDTTs brilliant tacticians NSO would be eating cookies and pooping rainbows right now.
[/quote]

Holy crap, it only took two posts for the lie to be mentioned again! I don't think people can be that stupid or that obstinate. Then again...

For reference, for the millionth +1 time:

[quote name=Ivan Moldavi]No.

Fark would not accept peace with NSO, which ran counter to every other theater of war ongoing or ending at the time. I was told that NSO would not get peace from Fark from Randomly Jim. After the counter declaration it was stated that peace could be achieved only if NSO surrendered to Fark.

Continuing to state something that is patently false will not make it true, regardless of how many times you state it.[/quote]

Edited February 19, 2010 by Mussolandia

[Timmmehhh]

[quote name='arentak' date='19 February 2010 - 02:49 PM' timestamp='1266587377' post='2191954']
NSO joined with Polar against the \m/ side. \m/'s allies didn't want to give NSO peace. IRON wasn't going to let NSO burn alone. TOP wasn't going to let IRON burn. Its all one war.
[/quote]
This is strangest spin ever. So TOP was basically chosing NSO above Umbrella? Umbrella was your direct MDoAP partner, and your only MDoAP parter under heavy attack by the time you entered. For reference they were under attack by like 13 million NS (NATO, The Foreign Division, NADC and Nueva Vidia) while IRON wasn't even involved yet. You guys simply decided that is was the best time to strike C&G and you had the odds in your favor big-time until the NpO \m/ peace happened. I know TOP thought they would win this for sure, if it wasn't for the peace between \m/ and NpO it would have happened, luckily for us it didn't.

Also your time-frame is off, TOP came in well before the peace between NSO was even discussed. FOK peaced out NSO the day after we peaced out with NpO. I think it would be good if FARK and GO did the same because the NSO war was part of the initial NpO \m/ war which was peaced out and NSO wasn't part of the TOP vs C&G war yet. I believe negotiations were still ongoing, and FARK was afraid that NSO would join in with IRON again, which was probably the reason they were reluctant to give NSO a white peace, and wanted them to surrender. I am not 100% sure what happened between FARK, GOD and NSO but I think NSO should have been granted peace there if they weren't going in with IRON again. If they were there was actually a reason not to give them peace, because they could have redeployed.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Timmehhh

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='StevieG' date='18 February 2010 - 11:27 PM' timestamp='1266557231' post='2191585']
Nope, you are absolutely wrong here. The definition of much in this case is [i]a great quantity, measure, or degree[/i]

If I own 35% of lets say Liverpool Football Club, do I own a great quantity of Liverpool shares? Yes I do. Thus, much of Liverpool Football Club belongs to me.

Edit: I will also point out that the point of my arguments on this certain matter were to refute the notion that the only reason TOP and co attacked C&G and co was too bring about their destruction and watch them burn.
[/quote]

in the example you give though, it is not just you and one other person who owns the Club. thus, you won't own much of it compared to someone else who owns say 45%.

so no, when it comes to just 2 (and not more than 2) things, much means that 1 is greater than the other. thus, you are wrong. keep spinning you seem to be making yourself rather dizzy and it is quite amusing.

[quote name='arentak' date='19 February 2010 - 07:49 AM' timestamp='1266587377' post='2191954']
NSO joined with Polar against the \m/ side. \m/'s allies didn't want to give NSO peace. IRON wasn't going to let NSO burn alone. TOP wasn't going to let IRON burn. Its all one war.
[/quote]

if IRON was not going to let NSO burn, then how come IRON did not DoW a single alliance hitting NSO? seems that by hitting CnG, they were letting NSO burn. sorry, but when you ignore the multitude of alliances that are attacking your ally to hit the allies of those alliances attacking your ally, you are ignoring the actual needs of your ally.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='neneko' date='19 February 2010 - 10:41 AM' timestamp='1266594081' post='2192057']
Way to fact check your post there. NSO was offered peace both before and after IRONs brilliant entry to the war. NSO refused peace after because they wanted to stick around for IRON to get peace. Both IRON and TOP entered by declaring on alliances uninvolved with NSO (or anyone else for that matter) so your spin doesn't even make sense. NSO is in this war in defense of IRON not the other way around. If it wasn't for TIFDTTs brilliant tacticians NSO would be eating cookies and pooping rainbows right now.
[/quote]
I know Mussolandia already addressed this but I will do so again, since it bears repeating and since it seems there is a fundamental lack of comprehension these days in regards to what is fact and what is rumor.

The NSO was not offered peace from Fark prior to the exit of Polar from the arena and the entrance of IRON onto the stage. Not once. I was told by my allies that Fark had agreed to it but when I approached Randomly Jim he told me that he was not aware of that arrangement and that he had no plans of allowing NSO to peace out, even though that was the agreement reached amongst every other ancillary combatant on the field at that time. The NSO had been in talks with GOD and GO over the issue and peace was arranged with them [i]provided[/i] Fark also granted us peace. Since that did not occur the peace discussions with them failed. It was Fark's refusal to honor the agreements everyone else had reached that caused those wars to continue, not the counter-declaration.

The counter-declaration came the following night, after another day of being told not once but twice that NSO would not get peace from Fark. It was a measure taken to alleviate our allies in Terra Cotta from being treaty bound to our defense because they were willing to stay in so long as we were and I wanted them to get out. Since it was apparent that there was no plan for NSO to gain peace I thought it best to remove my allies so that they would not have to suffer the same fate. Perhaps that was an error, perhaps not. I firmly believe, and there is absolutely nothing that would suggest otherwise, that even if I had not counter-declared we would still be at war with Fark because the only option presented to us since that initial declination of peace has been a call for our surrender. My membership has voted against surrendering so we will not.

In order for the counter-declaration to be the actual impetus for the ongoing NSO-Fark/GOD/GO/CSN war then after our counter there would have been a logical necessity for the others to redeclare upon NSO instead of acknowledging an already existent state of war and the 20 hours between Polar going to peace and my declaration would have seen no attacks and at the very least a general ceasefire amongst all parties since these supposed "peace talks" were taking place between Fark and NSO and I was busy refusing their offer of white peace. None of that happened.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Timmehhh' date='19 February 2010 - 10:23 AM' timestamp='1266596584' post='2192099']
This is strangest spin ever. So TOP was basically chosing NSO above Umbrella? Umbrella was your direct MDoAP partner, and your only MDoAP parter under heavy attack by the time you entered. For reference they were under attack by like 13 million NS (NATO, The Foreign Division, NADC and Nueva Vidia) while IRON wasn't even involved yet. You guys simply decided that is was the best time to strike C&G and you had the odds in your favor big-time until the NpO \m/ peace happened. I know TOP thought they would win this for sure, if it wasn't for the peace between \m/ and NpO it would have happened, luckily for us it didn't.
[/quote]
We were going to have allies on both sides of this war regardless of what was going to happen. Either we leave OMFG, OG and IRON out to dry or Umbrella and MHA. People are going to hate us either way so we decided to make a decision. I hate not helping some of our allies out but assisting the other side gain further control over this game was out of the question.

If we wanted the best time to hit CnG we would have done so in late 2009 or earlier in 2010. Instead we worked out peaceful solutions to the problems. Did we enter into the war just to take a shot at CnG? No, that was not the reason. However, if you think you understand our reasoning better than I, the Grand Chancellor at the time, by all means continue to be delusional.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Feanor Noldorin

[Dathtoal]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='19 February 2010 - 11:23 AM' timestamp='1266596634' post='2192100']
in the example you give though, it is not just you and one other person who owns the Club. thus, you won't own much of it compared to someone else who owns say 45%.

so no, when it comes to just 2 (and not more than 2) things, much means that 1 is greater than the other. thus, you are wrong. keep spinning you seem to be making yourself rather dizzy and it is quite amusing.
[/quote]

Not even close. It seems you don't know the difference between 'much' and 'most'. Go look up those extremely complex words and report back with what you've learned today.

Thanks.

[Tulafaras]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='19 February 2010 - 06:26 PM' timestamp='1266600365' post='2192193']

In order for the counter-declaration to be the actual impetus for the ongoing NSO-Fark/GOD/GO/CSN war then after our counter there would have been a logical necessity for the others to redeclare upon NSO instead of acknowledging an already existent state of war and the 20 hours between Polar going to peace and my declaration would have seen no attacks and at the very least a general ceasefire amongst all parties since these supposed "peace talks" were taking place between Fark and NSO and I was busy refusing their offer of white peace. None of that happened.
[/quote]
True in some points, somewhat confusing in others. There wasn't a general ceasefire, but GOD internal there was a ceasefire and we considered the war to be almost over.
Granted i was not part of the negotiations but i honestly don't think Xiph0 was lying to us when he said we were only waiting on Fark (a point which you also agree on).

As far as i remember the sticking point where things fell apart was that Fark wanted a clause added that you'd agree to stay neutral and not reenter the war for IRON was it not?

Regardless i think you are missing the point i was trying to refute. According to arentak we (as in the falsly named allies of m, we were actually in it for PC but who cares...) were refusing to give you peace and that is why IRON had to enter. If IRON had not entered no neutrality clause would have been needed and peace would long have been reached.

The NpO/NSO \m/ war was closing/slowing down (they had been meeting for peace talks for days if you remember) and i think even you would say that it looked as if this entire thing was almost over and done with before IRON/TOP blundered their way into it.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Tulafaras' date='19 February 2010 - 01:24 PM' timestamp='1266603872' post='2192258']
True in some points, somewhat confusing in others. There wasn't a general ceasefire, but GOD internal there was a ceasefire and we considered the war to be almost over.
Granted i was not part of the negotiations but i honestly don't think Xiph0 was lying to us when he said we were only waiting on Fark (a point which you also agree on).

As far as i remember the sticking point where things fell apart was that Fark wanted a clause added that you'd agree to stay neutral and not reenter the war for IRON was it not?

Regardless i think you are missing the point i was trying to refute. According to arentak we (as in the falsly named allies of m, we were actually in it for PC but who cares...) were refusing to give you peace and that is why IRON had to enter. If IRON had not entered no neutrality clause would have been needed and peace would long have been reached.

The NpO/NSO \m/ war was closing/slowing down (they had been meeting for peace talks for days if you remember) and i think even you would say that it looked as if this entire thing was almost over and done with before IRON/TOP blundered their way into it.
[/quote]
No, that "sticking point" came after. Prior to my counter declaration we were told that we would not be granted peace by Fark. There were no terms, no requests for surrender, just a blanket "you will not get peace right now". Randomly Jim expressed concern for our possible re-entry as a reason for us not being offered peace, not as a term of peace. Also, that still flew in the face of every other combat ending agreement on that front. It is easy to note that no other alliance was being held to such standards as the majority of them have re-entered at some stage, some even on your "side".

As for the rest, no, I don't think the war was winding down at all because I was told point blank that my alliance would not receive peace from Fark at that time.

[arentak]

If NpO and NSO peaced out the day before the TOP/IRON attack, this war would have ended then, as there would have been no IRON allies for TOP to intervene on behalf of, no moral cause to stand behind, and no reason at all to go to war.

This war could have ended anytime Supercomplaints wanted it to end, and that is still true today. If Supercomplaints chooses to wipe out another 20M NS on our side of the fence, and lose 20-30M NS of their own in the process, that is their choice. War is the ultimate expression of sovereignty, and I won't begrudge them the chance to have an exciting 6 months of warfare, since that seems to be what they are after.

[Windsor]

I must admit, the rogues don't contribute enough to political discussions that take place here. So, to help remedy that, here's my 2 cents:

That was a very heart-felt OP. It wouldn't have been made unless TheNeverender felt it was absolutely necessary. This was addressed in the very first sentence:

[quote]
It would appear the need has arisen for me to clear up a few misconceptions and to globally address a few matters, something I was genuinely hoping to avoid this time around.[/quote]


While it would be mildly hypocritical of me to point out that selectively addressing propaganda is bias and "bad", I would like to instead direct attention to TheNeverender's confirmation that opposing propaganda [i]is[/i] having an effect, hence, the OP. And while I'd like to think of Bob's inhabitants as independent thinkers, who are perfectly capable of forming their own opinions based on the information that they receive, it seems clear that they have figured out who is issuing out reliable information versus those that aren't. Mostly.

In this case, we have been left to sort through a dramatic plea to take the new hegemony's side in this war, and have been left no other choice but to simply "trust" that the information provided is correct. After taking a look at the war itself, and the decisions that have been made by leaders of both sides, I'm hard-pressed to go and do that.

The Karma War may have resulted in a power-shift. Responsibility...... not so much.

[D34th]

[quote name='arentak' date='19 February 2010 - 06:37 PM' timestamp='1266615429' post='2192450']
If NpO and NSO peaced out the day before the TOP/IRON attack, this war would have ended then, as there would have been no IRON allies for TOP to intervene on behalf of, no moral cause to stand behind, and no reason at all to go to war.
[/quote]

I have a little question here, why would TOP need that IRON had allies to a intervation be possible when in fact, instead of attack the the alliances who where attacking NSO you chose to open a new front?

[Bob Janova]

Because with no allies in the fight, they would have had no reason to enter it. It's really that simple. Attacking on a different front was a strategic decision about how to aid NSO (and yes, a poor one), there would have been no reason to intervene anywhere if NSO were not in (unless some other alliance got involved on that side).

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Denial' date='18 February 2010 - 09:54 PM' timestamp='1266548046' post='2191061']
We defended Universalis and PAIN nations, by entering through our legal obligations with Universalis. There is a good reason why many PAIN members joined Vanguard, and stayed there, following PAIN's disbandment. Universalis was attacked by a senior member of The Legion, who openly admitted he was acting upon target lists drawn up and dispersed by Legion government. Legion government confirmed that they indeed had target lists drawn up against Universalis and [b]had been planning to enter a war against them, and that the aforementioned senior member had merely 'jumped the gun'.[/b] If that is not a valid reason for Universalis to demand certain punishments against that member, and specific guarantees from The Legion that they will not attack Universalis, I do not know what is. The Legion failed to offer reasonable diplomatic solutions, and as such, Universalis moved to defend their attacked member. Again, a defensive war. As the Universalis - Vanguard treaty stated, an attack on Universalis was an attack on Vanguard, and we entered to defend our allies who were attacked, without reason or provocation, by a much larger party.
[/quote]
The lie is bolded.

[quote name='Denial' date='18 February 2010 - 09:54 PM' timestamp='1266548046' post='2191061']
There were also TOP government members - surprise, surprise, it was Crymson and Saber - involved and in favour of Vanguard's destruction, despite being allied to us. Surprisingly, chefjoe was more reasonable and interested in peace than our Paradoxian allies. In our corner, we had Echelon and Ragnarok, who were mere hours away from declaring on Legion, Invicta & UPN in our defence, had Vanguard not decided peace was a more prudent option for our allies.
[/quote]
I wouldn't describe what Crymson and Saber did during that crisis as "diplomacy" precisely.

Echelon, incidentally, at first encouraged UPN and Invicta to attack Vanguard, and then changed their minds. A curious parallel to what Grub said to TOP.

Must be something in the water in Blue.

[quote name='Denial' date='18 February 2010 - 09:54 PM' timestamp='1266548046' post='2191061']
Entering against your military superiors, anarchying your own nations, and being bettered within 24 hours is a war going exactly to plan for Invicta? You certainly have low standards.
[/quote]
We achieved every mission objective we had. Yes, statistically you were superior, even though at the time you made yourselves out to be underdogs: but Invicta's never been one to shy away from a challenge.

[quote name='Denial' date='18 February 2010 - 09:54 PM' timestamp='1266548046' post='2191061']
Peace had been on the table for more than 24 hours prior to the UPN and Invicta attacks, which ironically enough, occurred during another set of peace talks between Vanguard and The Legion.
[/quote]
White peace had been on the table pretty much since your blitz. Sounds kinda like what TOP offered C&G in this war, eh?

[President Sitruk]

it's too bad the DoW couldn't have waited an hour. then this whole mess wouldn't have happened.

[Gn0xious Jr]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='19 February 2010 - 03:09 PM' timestamp='1266620956' post='2192585']
it's too bad the DoW couldn't have waited an hour. then this whole mess wouldn't have happened.
[/quote]
[b]bold it[/b] and [u]underline it[/u] i.e. i agree

[der_ko]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='20 February 2010 - 12:09 AM' timestamp='1266620956' post='2192585']
it's too bad the DoW couldn't have waited an hour. then this whole mess wouldn't have happened.
[/quote]
TOP/IRON has made it perfectly clear their goal was to remove the C&G "threat". If the war hadn't happened this time it would have happened the next time they felt C&G was vulnerable instead.