Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[Krack]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='21 February 2010 - 06:53 PM' timestamp='1266799986' post='2195696']
I hate this logic coming from anybody, Its the same !@#$%^&* the NPO fed us for years to justify wars, threats to their security. You know what else secures your alliance? Diplomacy. People should take the time to talk out their issues like adults instead of resorting to the nuke.
[/quote]

Unfortunately, in this instance, it's actually true. When NPO tried to roll OV, it was laughable to believe NPO's "security" was at any risk from OV. The same is true of GPA, etc.

In this instance, TOP is without question a risk to C&G's security. How do I know this? Because they attacked them ... TO DRAW THEM INTO A LARGER WAR THAT THEY THOUGHT THEY HAD THE NUMBERS ADVANTAGE IN. It's not a "hey, let's debate whether or not TOP/IRON are a threat to C&G" situation - [b]THEY'VE ALREADY DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY ARE[/b].

Now, if you're gonna claim that C&G were a threat to TOP/IRON, then that is a different argument (with no demonstrable evidence that I've seen). But to claim that C&G are using the same failed logic that NPO used for years is inaccurate.

[b]EDIT:[/b]
Additional arguments being shot down before they are made:

1. Was TOP+Friends capable of destroying C&G? Yup, militarily they could pull it off whenever they wanted as long as SFs sits out.

2. Is TOP currently in a better position to rebuild than C&G? Yup, militarily, they will regain their strength light years faster than C&G alliances.

3. So is TOP, an alliance that just [u]demonstrated[/u] it was willing to take advantage of an opportunity to isolate MK's allies and destroy them, still currently a threat to C&G? Yup, if the war ends today, TOP will be stronger faster and cannot be trusted to take another shot at C&G if an opportunity presents itself.

[b]CONCLUSION:[/b] War continues and is completely justified as far as C&G is concerned.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Krack

[Believland]

oh lord. Why are you so paranoid? Please, let's just end the stupidest war with a one year nap.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='20 February 2010 - 08:54 PM' timestamp='1266717289' post='2194375']
how did CnG manipulate anything? TOP/IRON decided on their own to declare war on CnG and bypass IRON's treaty obligation while they were at it. [b]TOP/IRON decided on their own to neglect asking anyone about how peace talks were going[/b] and instead just declared war. CnG did not have to do nothing at all since TOP/IRON did very little other than gun for CnG.
[/quote]
Ah, there's a little factual problem there Doch.

There weren't any peace talks going on when TOP/IRON made the decision to declare war. It was because of that decision that peace talks appeared.

Thus we have the manipulation.

(Now we agree on the other subject, tho, so let's not get into a is-MK-or-IRON-worse argument. heh.)

[Ryuzaki]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='22 February 2010 - 12:53 PM' timestamp='1266799986' post='2195696']
I hate this logic coming from anybody, Its the same !@#$%^&* the NPO fed us for years to justify wars, threats to their security. You know what else secures your alliance? Diplomacy. People should take the time to talk out their issues like adults instead of resorting to the nuke.
[/quote]

I agree with you. (OOC: Not really, wars and the build up to them are entertaining)

However, in the scenario I presented as a question for Bob, you would do well to note that it would be TOP/IRON who were following that terrible logic. By far the better way to deal with it is to use diplomacy to position yourself so that if they are indeed a threat and strike at you, as seen here with TOP/IRON, you can defeat them.

[quote name='Haflinger' date='22 February 2010 - 01:44 PM' timestamp='1266803089' post='2195756']
Ah, there's a little factual problem there Doch.

There weren't any peace talks going on when TOP/IRON made the decision to declare war. It was because of that decision that peace talks appeared.

Thus we have the manipulation.
[/quote]

Do you have anything to back that claim up?

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Ryuzaki' date='21 February 2010 - 08:54 PM' timestamp='1266803657' post='2195768']
Do you have anything to back that claim up?
[/quote]
Simple chain of events. All this stuff has been posted in public.

TOP/IRON decide to attack C&G, it gets leaked to MK and possibly others, and then \m/ contacts NpO to indicate they're accepting Grub's offer.

[Ryuzaki]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='22 February 2010 - 02:04 PM' timestamp='1266804277' post='2195784']
Simple chain of events. All this stuff has been posted in public.

TOP/IRON decide to attack C&G, it gets leaked to MK and possibly others, and then \m/ contacts NpO to indicate they're accepting Grub's offer.
[/quote]

That is a chain of events. That isn't evidence that \m/ decided they should accept Grub's offer because of TOP/IRON.

[AlmightyGrub]

[quote name='Believland' date='22 February 2010 - 11:43 AM' timestamp='1266803036' post='2195755']
oh lord. Why are you so paranoid? Please, let's just end the stupidest war with a one year nap.
[/quote]

Just because you are not paranoid does not mean they are not coming to get you.

Having paid scant attention to Bob for a few days, I can honestly say that some people are speaking out their collective fundamental orifice. I will wear whatever criticism for my handling of the \m/ peace resolution, it was poorly communicated (I have reasons but they are unimportant) but all these other paranoid delusions are nothing but fodder for the masses.

It is fairly simple really. Cause and effect. Be objective and it is all very very simple. Unfortunately everyone has a political barrow to push and will never dare actually considering the simplicity of it all.

GL HF

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='AlmightyGrub' date='21 February 2010 - 09:41 PM' timestamp='1266806461' post='2195823']Unfortunately everyone has a political barrow to push and will never dare actually considering the simplicity of it all.[/quote]

The best part of wearing a tinfoil hat is that it's so easy to adjust when you need to.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Krack' date='21 February 2010 - 08:32 PM' timestamp='1266802328' post='2195739']
Unfortunately, in this instance, it's actually true. When NPO tried to roll OV, it was laughable to believe NPO's "security" was at any risk from OV. The same is true of GPA, etc.

In this instance, TOP is without question a risk to C&G's security. How do I know this? Because they attacked them ... TO DRAW THEM INTO A LARGER WAR THAT THEY THOUGHT THEY HAD THE NUMBERS ADVANTAGE IN. It's not a "hey, let's debate whether or not TOP/IRON are a threat to C&G" situation - [b]THEY'VE ALREADY DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY ARE[/b].

Now, if you're gonna claim that C&G were a threat to TOP/IRON, then that is a different argument (with no demonstrable evidence that I've seen). But to claim that C&G are using the same failed logic that NPO used for years is inaccurate.

[b]EDIT:[/b]
Additional arguments being shot down before they are made:

1. Was TOP+Friends capable of destroying C&G? Yup, militarily they could pull it off whenever they wanted as long as SFs sits out.

2. Is TOP currently in a better position to rebuild than C&G? Yup, militarily, they will regain their strength light years faster than C&G alliances.

3. So is TOP, an alliance that just [u]demonstrated[/u] it was willing to take advantage of an opportunity to isolate MK's allies and destroy them, still currently a threat to C&G? Yup, if the war ends today, TOP will be stronger faster and cannot be trusted to take another shot at C&G if an opportunity presents itself.

[b]CONCLUSION:[/b] War continues and is completely justified as far as C&G is concerned.
[/quote]

You are either misunderstanding, or misconstruing my point. There is a very large difference between saying someone is a threat to you and then using that as a justification for a preemptive strike, and being presented with the truth when somebody jumps you.

After the shooting has started, the shooting has started and its a different ball game, before that, you are just feeding your own paranoia.

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='Ryuzaki' date='21 February 2010 - 07:54 PM' timestamp='1266803657' post='2195768']
Do you have anything to back that claim up?
[/quote]

so should TOP ask you if you have any claim that'll prove TOP is a future threat?

[Krack]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='21 February 2010 - 08:53 PM' timestamp='1266807185' post='2195840']
You are either [b]misunderstanding[/b], or misconstruing my point.
[/quote]

Re-reading your post that I quoted, I believe I have. I thought you were contradicting the post you quoted, not agreeing with it. Based on your further posts, it appears we are in agreement.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Krack

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Krack' date='21 February 2010 - 10:02 PM' timestamp='1266807728' post='2195856']
Re-reading your post that I quoted, I believe I have. I thought you were contradicting the post you quoted, not agreeing with it. Based on your further posts, it appears we are in agreement.
[/quote]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='21 February 2010 - 09:53 PM' timestamp='1266807185' post='2195840']
You are either misunderstanding, or misconstruing my point.
[/quote]

Had to include both, hard to be sure which one applies on the OWF a lot of the time

[Krack]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='21 February 2010 - 09:01 PM' timestamp='1266807700' post='2195854']
so should TOP ask you if you have any claim that'll prove TOP is a future threat?
[/quote]

Sure. I claim past behavior is a likely predictor of future behavior. Specifically, I cite [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79441"]this thread[/url] where TOP declared war on a bunch of nations who were not attacking them or any of their allies; it happened recently. I further claim, that because of TOP's renowned money reserves and tech supply advantages, if war halted immediately, TOP would be able to regroup militarily far, far faster than the alliances they are currently fighting. Lastly, I claim that TOP's reason for war ...

[quote]To our opponents: We agree with the New Polar Order's reasons for war against \m/, and we consider ourselves part of that particular side of the war. [b]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.[/b] This is a war they have brought upon themselves. [/quote]

... specifically the the bolded portion, has not changed. This is a war declaration signed by, what appears to be, their entire alliance. C&G still exist. As does (I assume) TOP's desire to defeat them. As does whatever reason TOP had that made them think C&G had "doing harm to [TOP] high on their agenda".

TOP was surely a threat to C&G on Jan 28, 2010. Since then, nothing has changed to make people reasonably think TOP does not present a future threat to C&G.

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='Krack' date='21 February 2010 - 09:19 PM' timestamp='1266808768' post='2195885']
TOP was surely a threat to C&G on Jan 28, 2010. Since then, nothing has changed to make people reasonably think TOP does not present a future threat to C&G.
[/quote]

because you can see the future, right? just like TOP/IRON were able to see the future?

[Krack]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='21 February 2010 - 09:22 PM' timestamp='1266808944' post='2195892']
because you can see the future, right? just like TOP/IRON were able to see the future?
[/quote]

Nobody can see the future; that's the point. So you take the best available data and try to predict the future to the best of your abilities. And right now, the best available data is that TOP claimed they were starting a war with C&G because they felt C&G would harm them if they could and TOP had a perceived military advantage when they did this. Further, if the war ended today, C&G would still exist and TOP would be able to quickly re-create a military advantage based on their money and tech.

The best analysis I can make is that TOP (today, in present form) is a threat to C&G. If I were them (C&G), I'd continue war until I had removed TOP's ablity to "quickly re-create a military advantage."

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='Krack' date='21 February 2010 - 09:35 PM' timestamp='1266809752' post='2195950']
Nobody can see the future; that's the point. So you take the best available data and try to predict the future to the best of your abilities. And right now, the best available data is that TOP claimed they were starting a war with C&G because they felt C&G would harm them if they could and TOP had a perceived military advantage when they did this. Further, if the war ended today, C&G would still exist and TOP would be able to quickly re-create a military advantage based on their money and tech.

The best analysis I can make is that TOP (today, in present form) is a threat to C&G. If I were them (C&G), I'd continue war until I had removed TOP's ablity to "quickly re-create a military advantage."
[/quote]

so in doing that, CnG will continue to lose the ability to rebuild, too, turning this into a very, very long conflict.

but being a threat in the present doesnt mean they'd be a threat in the future. of course i cant say what's going on over in TOP. but like you said, you roll with what you got and what CnG has right now is the upper hand.

Edited February 22, 2010 by President Sitruk

[Krack]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='21 February 2010 - 09:56 PM' timestamp='1266811011' post='2196037']
so in doing that, CnG will continue to lose the ability to rebuild, too, turning this into a very, very long conflict.
[/quote]

Oh well. I'd rather finish it now than have to do it again in 6 months without my current military advantage (Remember 6 months ago when IRON f'd up and they got let off easy because TOP [s]was being a jerk about it[/s] asked nicely? Me too.).

[Crymson]

[quote name='Krack' date='21 February 2010 - 12:48 PM' timestamp='1266781733' post='2195342']
I know this ... your alliance is getting the ______ kicked out of it and it's your fault. I also know that for an alliance that aggressively declared on its opponents, the most enormously comic and pathetic concept is that you're now in a position where you've got to get guys into peace mode. My question was, are your nations trying to hibernate until peace talks? Or are you just trying to build back up your nuke piles? It is extremely hard to tell what military tactics your alliance is using because, as you demonstrated in the Karma War, you are very good at talking a great game while not actually doing anything. Kudos on your military puffery.

I thought your allies might like to know whether they should be trying to escape anyone they can into peace mode, too. And/or whether or not they should start trying to manufacturer their own exits.
[/quote]

HAHAHAHA... you're really trying to make a name for yourself, aren't you? It's too bad that you decided to made a snide response towards Bob, because he was making a respectful attempt to warn you off from going down the ridiculous line of dialogue that you, in the event, went down anyway.

I can only assume that neither yourself nor anybody in your alliance knows even the most remote thing about how to fight a long-term war. Oh, and feel free to ask MK and co how well TOP is fighting.

You make me laugh. Please continue making a fool of yourself. It adds some much-needed levity to these forums.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='21 February 2010 - 07:18 PM' timestamp='1266801482' post='2195731']
I wasn't specifically blaming one side over the other for that behavior*, just underscoring how much I detest it. A threat to your security is never a justification, because until the shooting actually starts it should still be talking time.

Idiocy like preemptive strikes are simply self fulfilling prophesy, TOP and IRON were convinced C&G would be their downfall, so they attacked.

The sad part is, their mauling in this war will only confirm their beliefs in their minds, it'll never occur to them to think that their preemptive strike is what caused it in the first place.

*Though TOP and IRON are certainly the most recent example.
[/quote]

ahhhh... sorry for the misunderstanding. thank you for clearing it up. i do agree that diplomacy should always take place regardless as well.

[quote name='Haflinger' date='21 February 2010 - 07:44 PM' timestamp='1266803089' post='2195756']
Ah, there's a little factual problem there Doch.

There weren't any peace talks going on when TOP/IRON made the decision to declare war. It was because of that decision that peace talks appeared.

Thus we have the manipulation.

(Now we agree on the other subject, tho, so let's not get into a is-MK-or-IRON-worse argument. heh.)
[/quote]

from everything i have heard, there were peace talks occurring. if not, it really does not matter since peace was always on the table, all \m/ had to do was accept. thus, TOP/IRON should have realized that should they enter as they were about to do, many alliances would have began pushing \m/ to take peace in order to fulfill other treaty obligations since that would have been the easiest way to clear up a significant portion of alliances.

so there is still no manipulation since there are many things that TOP/IRON failed to take into account on their own that brought this about.

in order to have manipulation we would have to have CnG somehow dictating to TOP/IRON that they plan a preemptive strike against CnG and then carry it out. since the plan and execution were solely that of TOP/IRON there is no manipulation involved. to even consider this is ridiculous as none of what TOP/IRON did could be even remotely considered manipulated.

[quote name='Haflinger' date='21 February 2010 - 08:04 PM' timestamp='1266804277' post='2195784']
Simple chain of events. All this stuff has been posted in public.

TOP/IRON decide to attack C&G, it gets leaked to MK and possibly others, and then \m/ contacts NpO to indicate they're accepting Grub's offer.
[/quote]

so essentially what you are saying is that peace talks were underway prior to TOP/IRON attacking? wait, didn't you just tell me that there were no talks? can't have it both ways mate.

[Krack]

[quote name='Crymson' date='21 February 2010 - 11:50 PM' timestamp='1266817808' post='2196515']
You make me laugh. Please continue making a fool of yourself. It adds some much-needed levity to these forums.
[/quote]

Deal. You keep steering your alliance from the #1 spot to the cellar. And I'll keep pointing it out and laughing at you.*

[size="1"]*Yes, Baghdad Bob, I know he's not in charge anymore and that means TOP is wonderful again and your buddies should all get off with a stern talking-to, and everything will be wonderful in the world again, and TOP's membership now loves MK and wants to invite them to the prom.[/size]

[Xiphosis]

[quote]*Yes, Baghdad Bob, I know he's not in charge anymore and that means TOP is wonderful again and your buddies should all get off with a stern talking-to, and everything will be wonderful in the world again, and TOP's membership now loves MK and wants to invite them to the prom. [/quote]

This sounds familiar.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='22 February 2010 - 11:12 AM' timestamp='1266819127' post='2196629']
from everything i have heard, there were peace talks occurring. if not, it really does not matter since peace was always on the table, all \m/ had to do was accept. [/quote]

From what I heard after the wars gotten underway, the peace talks indeed were occurring and \m/ didnt just have to accept, they had to get thier allies out and I believe thats one of the reasons why peace talks were going on, regardless we were not informed, if we knew, there would be peace in our time again ;/.

[quote]
so essentially what you are saying is that peace talks were underway prior to TOP/IRON attacking? wait, didn't you just tell me that there were no talks?
[/quote]
Talks we were not aware of and apparently which were underway prior to us attacking, CnG being aware of both tho. What I think some people might be trying to imply is that CnG could have also stopped this when they found out about the pre-emptive strike. They too had a choice of war and peace, they took their chance to win the war instead of winning the peace, from there point of view, that does not seems like an irrational choice, it also allowed them to spin it easier and makes things less bumpy on political front.

[necAnt]

[quote name='Krack' date='22 February 2010 - 03:19 AM' timestamp='1266808768' post='2195885']
Sure. [b]I claim past behavior is a likely predictor of future behavior.[/b]

...

[/quote]

ok, so you just said that Athens, as an example, will allways be an threat to small alliances (around the 30 member mark), as they have shown with in the KoN! incident, as they attacked an peacefull alliance with the CB, paraphrased, "we come to steal your tech." Going with your claim, they will do it again and again, as they will likely not change.

[Krack]

[quote name='necAnt' date='22 February 2010 - 03:03 AM' timestamp='1266829438' post='2197017']
ok, so you just said that Athens, as an example, will allways be an threat to small alliances (around the 30 member mark), as they have shown with in the KoN! incident, as they attacked an peacefull alliance with the CB, paraphrased, "we come to steal your tech." Going with your claim, they will do it again and again, as they will likely not change.
[/quote]

Um ... alright *shrugs shoulders*

As I have said numerous times, in multiple threads, I find Athens uninteresting. I am not treatied to them and I don't feel threatened by them, so they affect my existence very little. This is shocking, I know! I'm in a tiny alliance, you'd think I'd be petrified. However, unless you are referring to TOP or IRON as a "small alliance", it doesn't really have anything to do with this thread.

[necAnt]

[quote name='Krack' date='22 February 2010 - 09:36 AM' timestamp='1266831418' post='2197025']
Um ... alright *shrugs shoulders*

As I have said numerous times, in multiple threads, I find Athens uninteresting. I am not treatied to them and I don't feel threatened by them, so they affect my existence very little. This is shocking, I know! I'm in a tiny alliance, you'd think I'd be petrified. However, unless you are referring to TOP or IRON as a "small alliance", it doesn't really have anything to do with this thread.
[/quote]

ok, i got it. You don´t care for Athens, i however wanted to show, you that your generalisation of "they can´t cange, they allways will be a threat" works in both directions and for both sides.