Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[Baldr]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='19 February 2010 - 05:09 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]

I think the peace that was announced suddenly after the TOP DoW came *because* of TOP's DoW.

[President Sitruk]

i guess we'll never know, Baldr.

[quote name='der_ko' date='19 February 2010 - 05:38 PM' timestamp='1266622729' post='2192640']
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.
[/quote]

an obstacle to winning the war, yes.

Edited February 19, 2010 by President Sitruk

[Chickenzilla]

[quote name='arentak' date='19 February 2010 - 03:37 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.

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.
[/quote]
I was hoping for something along the lines of a year.

[Roadie]

[quote name='Chickenzilla' date='19 February 2010 - 06:16 PM' timestamp='1266624998' post='2192679']
I was hoping for something along the lines of a year.
[/quote]

I wonder if after that they will still blame their laggard stats on a long passed and breif curbstomping from hegemony.

[Pablo Monkey]

[quote name='Baldr' date='19 February 2010 - 03:46 PM' timestamp='1266623194' post='2192647']
I think the peace that was announced suddenly after the TOP DoW came *because* of TOP's DoW.
[/quote]

I think everyone knows this to be the truth, but for some people it doesn't fit into their propaganda. The OP is looking to rewrite his actions and most people see right through it.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Dathtoal' date='19 February 2010 - 12:00 PM' timestamp='1266602417' post='2192234']
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.
[/quote]

yeah because i have no idea what they mean. here because i tire of this silly argument.

much
   /mʌtʃ/ Show Spelled [muhch] Show IPA adjective,more, most, noun, adverb,more, most.
–adjective
1.
great in quantity, measure, or degree: too much cake.

much (mŭch)
adj. more (môr, mōr), most (mōst)
Great in quantity, degree, or extent: not much rain; much affection.
n.

1. A large quantity or amount: Much has been written.
2. Something great or remarkable: The campus wasn't much to look at.

adv. more, most

1. To a great degree or extent: much smarter.

so from these definition we can gather that if much of the reason for war was the whole CnG is a future threat thing, then given the context it is put in, it means that the greatest quantity of the reason for war was the future threat. otherwise it would have read something like "the second reason for this war is blah blah blah".

now, will ya'll just admit you are wrong and give it up. the greatest reasoning for this war as given by TOP was CnG being a threat and not helping Polaris.

[Dathtoal]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='20 February 2010 - 12:49 AM' timestamp='1266644945' post='2193094']
yeah because i have no idea what they mean. here because i tire of this silly argument.

much
   /mʌtʃ/ Show Spelled [muhch] Show IPA adjective,more, most, noun, adverb,more, most.
–adjective
1.
great in quantity, measure, or degree: too much cake.

much (mŭch)
adj. more (môr, mōr), most (mōst)
Great in quantity, degree, or extent: not much rain; much affection.
n.

1. A large quantity or amount: Much has been written.
2. Something great or remarkable: The campus wasn't much to look at.

adv. more, most

1. To a great degree or extent: much smarter.

so from these definition we can gather that if much of the reason for war was the whole CnG is a future threat thing, then given the context it is put in, [b]it means that the greatest quantity [/b]of the reason for war was the future threat. otherwise it would have read something like "the second reason for this war is blah blah blah".

now, will ya'll just admit you are wrong and give it up. the greatest reasoning for this war as given by TOP was CnG being a threat and not helping Polaris.
[/quote]

I'm perfectly aware that you have no idea what they mean, hence my post. 'Much' does not mean the greatest quantity. Never has, never will. That is where you fail. But the 'greatest quantity' is the [i]exact[/i] definition on 'Most':

Main Entry: 1most
Pronunciation: \ˈmōst\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English mǣst; akin to Old High German meist most, Old English māra more — more at more
Date: before 12th century
1 : [b]greatest in quantity[/b], extent, or degree <the most ability>
2 : the majority of <most people>

Any questions?

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Dathtoal' date='20 February 2010 - 01:02 AM' timestamp='1266645759' post='2193128']
I'm perfectly aware that you have no idea what they mean, hence my post. 'Much' does not mean the greatest quantity. Never has, never will. That is where you fail. But the 'greatest quantity' is the [i]exact[/i] definition on 'Most':

Main Entry: 1most
Pronunciation: \ˈmōst\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English mǣst; akin to Old High German meist most, Old English māra more — more at more
Date: before 12th century
1 : [b]greatest in quantity[/b], extent, or degree <the most ability>
2 : the majority of <most people>

Any questions?
[/quote]

Oh vocab ftw o/

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Dathtoal' date='20 February 2010 - 12:02 AM' timestamp='1266645759' post='2193128']
I'm perfectly aware that you have no idea what they mean, hence my post. 'Much' does not mean the greatest quantity. Never has, never will. That is where you fail. But the 'greatest quantity' is the [i]exact[/i] definition on 'Most':

Main Entry: 1most
Pronunciation: \ˈmōst\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English mǣst; akin to Old High German meist most, Old English māra more — more at more
Date: before 12th century
1 : [b]greatest in quantity[/b], extent, or degree <the most ability>
2 : the majority of <most people>

Any questions?
[/quote]

so i take it you missed this then:

adv. [b]more, most[/b]

1. To a great degree or extent: [i]much smarter[/i].

read the bold and you will get synonyms for much. read the italicized and you will get an example of how much can be used in a sentence. the example could be better explained by this:

i am much smarter than you.

now with that sentence, it is clear that much means more. given that that is pretty much the exact context used in the DoW, you can see that regardless of your "vocab", you are still wrong.

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='20 February 2010 - 01:28 AM' timestamp='1266647307' post='2193194']
so i take it you missed this then:

adv. [b]more, most[/b]

1. To a great degree or extent: [i]much smarter[/i].

read the bold and you will get synonyms for much. read the italicized and you will get an example of how much can be used in a sentence. the example could be better explained by this:

i am much smarter than you.

now with that sentence, it is clear that much means more. given that that is pretty much the exact context used in the DoW, you can see that regardless of your "vocab", you are still wrong.
[/quote]

Buddy, if you cannot distinguish the difference between "much" and "most" no one can help you. You obviously have no concept of basic linguistics, and have a [b]very[/b] poor command of the English language. I will send your nation aid in the form of our 1st grade vocabulary books because if your nations leader has such a pathetic command of language I shutter to think of the ignorance which must pervade your nation.

[OOC]Protip: If you are arguing about the definition of a word, make sure your use of that word, is in the same part of speech as the original usage. Not that it actually matters, you're wrong regardless, but it helps to make people think you understand basic grammar.
ie: In "Much of our reason", "much" is not being used the same way as "much smarter"

Protip 2: If you are arguing over the definition of the word, do not claim that the fact that two words are synonyms somehow trumps the respective definition of the words. It only demonstrates that you do not understand what a "synonym" is.[/OOC]

Edited February 20, 2010 by Lord Curzon

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='20 February 2010 - 01:18 AM' timestamp='1266650322' post='2193304']
Buddy, if you cannot distinguish the difference between "much" and "most" no one can help you. You obviously have no concept of basic linguistics, and have a [b]very[/b] poor command of the English language. I will send your nation aid in the form of our 1st grade vocabulary books because if your nations leader has such a pathetic command of language I shutter to think of the ignorance which must pervade your nation.

[OOC]Protip: If you are arguing about the definition of a word, make sure your use of that word, is in the same part of speech as the original usage. Not that it actually matters, you're wrong regardless, but it helps to make people think you understand basic grammar.
ie: In "Much of our reason", "much" is not being used the same way as "much smarter"

Protip 2: If you are arguing over the definition of the word, do not claim that the fact that two words are synonyms somehow trumps the respective definition of the words. It only demonstrates that you do not understand what a "synonym" is.[/OOC]
[/quote]

yeah, i have a poor command of the english language... i have never tried to argue that much and most mean the same thing. ya'll keep saying that. i keep stating that much can mean greater. which i have proven. and "much of our reason" is being used in the same context as "much smarter" in that both mean greater. if you cannot understand the context of that sentence, then stop with the attempts to insult me and take your protips and use them yourself.

nice ad hominem.

claiming that two words are synomyms shows that they are relatively close in meaning of their respective words as you would not state that high and low are synomyms but you would state that high and lofty are synomyms.

your argument in this post actually shows how little you know of english than it does me.

[Godwin]

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='15 February 2010 - 09:46 PM' timestamp='1266288410' post='2184044']We would also like to note that 2 + 2 = 4, as we feel these two statements are equally obvious.[/quote]

That made my day, thank you very much.


It's really a shame this thread has devolved into people arguing over grammar, though.

[Eric Cantona]

A shame indeed. And if people don't get back on track, I'm going to warn them.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]The OP is looking to rewrite his actions and most people see right through it. [/quote]
Actually, on that point at least, it isn't. The OP states exactly what you say, that efforts to secure peace on the other fronts were stepped up because they knew TOP and IRON were coming.

[Timmmehhh]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='19 February 2010 - 06:53 PM' timestamp='1266601981' post='2192226']
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. [/quote] History proved otherwise, I think there might have been peace at-least before OMFG or OG would have entered. The peace-deal between \m/ and NpO showed all of us that peace wasn't that far away. Also FOK (one of the keyplayers of the "otherside") didn't go in "to gain full control over this game". If we really wanted control over this game, we wouldn't have started a war with NpO because it would probably be the worst strategic decision ever if that was our goal. Feanor I think you are an honest and upfront guy, but TOP should really start making FA choices in peacetime instead of simply choosing a side in a war because that will leave allies out to dry.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]
I am not totally aware of the situations you are referring too, but wouldn't that bring in alliances like NpO, Nueva Vida and STA (The ones who were now occupied fighting) against you too? I doubt they would have given their approval for such an attack nor would any other of the MK treaty-partners including FOK. Maybe the reason was not only to take a shot at C&G but it was a big part I think, you guys were way to paranoid that C&G was coming to get you. But lets get realistic nobody really wants to fight an alliance with good fighters and a very strong toptier like TOP. What was the reasoning for the entry of the war if I may ask? Besides Umbrella you had no direct treaties with the NpO-\m/ FOK PC conflict. Was it to help NSO (IRON treatypartner)out? Why have you guys not worked on a peaceful resolution in this conflict? You guys tend to do that in most conflicts. MK had also treaties on both sides and tried to negotiate peace several times.

Beside my comments I want to say that I respect you guys for the way you are fighting, you guys seems to be better now at the military things than the diplomatic stuff

Edited February 20, 2010 by Timmehhh

[Goldie]

This whole affair boils down to two quick statements:

C&G, by virtue of their disdain for the original war and their efforts to try and secure peace for their allies as well as for the front in general, [u]did not want this war to happen[/u].
TOP, by virtue of their aggressive attack against a bloc of alliances that were not fighting in the war rather than make efforts to try and secure peace for [s]their allies[/s] their allies of allies of allies, [u]wanted this war to happen[/u].

Simple as that.

[Snowbeast]

[quote name='goldielax25' date='20 February 2010 - 11:43 AM' timestamp='1266684239' post='2193727']
This whole affair boils down to two quick statements:

C&G, by virtue of their disdain for the original war and their efforts to try and secure peace for their allies as well as for the front in general, [u]did not want this war to happen[/u].
TOP, by virtue of their aggressive attack against a bloc of alliances that were not fighting in the war rather than make efforts to try and secure peace for [s]their allies[/s] their allies of allies of allies, [u]wanted this war to happen[/u].

Simple as that.
[/quote]
This guy gets it!

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='goldielax25' date='20 February 2010 - 10:43 AM' timestamp='1266684239' post='2193727']TOP, by virtue of their aggressive attack against a bloc of alliances that were not fighting in the war rather than make efforts to try and secure peace for [s]their allies[/s] their allies of allies of allies, [u]wanted this war to happen[/u].
[/quote]

that line of thinking is called paranoia.

[pezstar]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='20 February 2010 - 12:40 PM' timestamp='1266687651' post='2193799']
that line of thinking is called paranoia.
[/quote]


It doesn't make it any less true.

[Snowbeast]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='20 February 2010 - 12:40 PM' timestamp='1266687651' post='2193799']
that line of thinking is called paranoia.
[/quote]
It's still hilarious hearing someone from the TOP & Friends coalition call [i]us [/i]paranoid.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Snowbeast' date='20 February 2010 - 12:43 PM' timestamp='1266687828' post='2193804']
It's still hilarious hearing someone from the TOP & Friends coalition call [i]us [/i]paranoid.
[/quote]
Look, paranoia is clearly endemic. I'm losing track of the number of people who clearly think someone else is out to get them, on both sides of this insanity.

I'm getting tired of it.

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='Snowbeast' date='20 February 2010 - 11:43 AM' timestamp='1266687828' post='2193804']
It's still hilarious hearing someone from the TOP & Friends coalition call [i]us [/i]paranoid.
[/quote]

cant say i was paranoid at all. i have no ill feelings towards those on the SuperGrievances side. i can look at treaties and Archon's statement and know the war would've came either way. i fight for TORN and her allies, that is all.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]C&G, by virtue of their disdain for the original war and their efforts to try and secure peace for their allies as well as for the front in general, did not want this war to happen.[/quote]
If they didn't want it to happen, they'd have tipped off the PEA that peace was about to be achieved. I would say that they absolutely wanted [i]this[/i] war (a stomping of TOP and IRON) to happen, and manipulated the [i]other[/i] part of the war (which many people on the raiding side wanted to happen, hence the escalation in the first place) in order to get this one.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='20 February 2010 - 01:13 PM' timestamp='1266693202' post='2193952']
If they didn't want it to happen, they'd have tipped off the PEA that peace was about to be achieved. I would say that they absolutely wanted [i]this[/i] war (a stomping of TOP and IRON) to happen, and manipulated the [i]other[/i] part of the war (which many people on the raiding side wanted to happen, hence the escalation in the first place) in order to get this one.
[/quote]

you seem to act as if CnG has any treaties whatsoever with TOP or IRON? not to mention, TOP and IRON could have done this themselves by asking prior to declaring war how the peace talks were going? why is it that TOP and IRON have no responsibility whatsoever towards finding out the progress of peace for the side they are supposedly entering on? i am sure that had anyone in TOP or IRON or both had asked someone in the know in Polaris they would have been told that peace is underway and could be had that day. then TOP/IRON may not have declared. but to place blame on CnG for not telling TOP/IRON is just ridiculous. to place blame on Polaris (who again is not allied whatsoever to TOP or IRON) is less ridiculous but still ridiculous.

while Polaris may have known that TOP/IRON wanted to go preemptive, not sure if this has been asked, but did Polaris know when? did TOP/IRON tell Polaris the exact date they would attack?

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[quote]you seem to act as if CnG has any treaties whatsoever with TOP or IRON? not to mention, TOP and IRON could have done this themselves by asking prior to declaring war how the peace talks were going? why is it that TOP and IRON have no responsibility whatsoever towards finding out the progress of peace for the side they are supposedly entering on? i am sure that had anyone in TOP or IRON or both had asked someone in the know in Polaris they would have been told that peace is underway and could be had that day. then TOP/IRON may not have declared. but to place blame on CnG for not telling TOP/IRON is just ridiculous. to place blame on Polaris (who again is not allied whatsoever to TOP or IRON) is less ridiculous but still ridiculous.[/quote]
I think he was mostly refering to allies of CnG who were fighting on Polaris side and who worked very diligently to get a peace agreement at the last minute, knowing TOP-IRON were going in. And without informing the rest of the coalition that peace was almost a sure thing.