Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[James I]

[quote name='necAnt' date='22 February 2010 - 09:46 AM' timestamp='1266831966' post='2197031']
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.
[/quote]
True in a way, but remember that Athens did make a genuine apology and recognised and condemned their wrong-doing in that situation. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that those who look down on C&G's behaviour have changed their opinion of us. This tends to indicate that they may be willing to use the same reason to go to war again, if only in the context of a global war which they believe they will win.

[necAnt]

[quote name='James I' date='22 February 2010 - 12:51 PM' timestamp='1266843110' post='2197139']
True in a way, but remember that Athens did make a genuine apology and recognised and condemned their wrong-doing in that situation. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that those who look down on C&G's behaviour have changed their opinion of us. This tends to indicate that they may be willing to use the same reason to go to war again, if only in the context of a global war which they believe they will win.
[/quote]
True in a way, but the apology was done under immense pressure by, if i remember right, your King and some other alliances, so you may understand that i still have no 100% faith in it, but i will give them the chance to proove me wrong.
However Krack war right with 1 thing, we are drifting apart from the real point of the thread, and i only wanted to use Athen as an example for the other side, so if you agree, we drop this discussion in here, and if needed send each other some letterbugs (we ants have found out they are far supperior to doves, as they are cheaper and smaller ).

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Ryuzaki' date='21 February 2010 - 09:07 PM' timestamp='1266804442' post='2195789']
That is a chain of events. That isn't evidence that \m/ decided they should accept Grub's offer because of TOP/IRON.
[/quote]
Oh come on, how stupid do you think we are?

Someone approaches \m/ and says "How would you like to be on the winning side instead? Apologize to Grub and we can make it happen."

Isn't that a lot easier to believe than a magic coincidence that just so happens to cement Superfriends power?

[James I]

[quote name='necAnt' date='22 February 2010 - 01:27 PM' timestamp='1266845260' post='2197171']
True in a way, but the apology was done under immense pressure by, if i remember right, your King and some other alliances, so you may understand that i still have no 100% faith in it, but i will give them the chance to proove me wrong.
[/quote]
No, you remember wrong.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='22 February 2010 - 01:12 AM' timestamp='1266819127' post='2196629']
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.
[/quote]
Actually, I'm saying the exact opposite.

There weren't any peace talks ongoing (at least that's what NpO was telling us), and then suddenly \m/ came out of the blue to accept Grub's standing offer.

[PrideAssassin]

[quote name='Tulafaras' date='21 February 2010 - 05:30 AM' timestamp='1266759030' post='2194956']
Carefull your bias is showing.

Frankly put maybe you should reconsider which alliance you should belong to. Clearly you would feel more at home in TOP.
I've enjoyed reading the ridiculous verbal acrobatics you have been using to try and justify TOP's position in this war, but frankly you've become boring. You repeat the same lies you've been sprouting since the conflict has started maybe you should actually consider the other sides point of view once in a while to get some new material.

The facts of the situation are crystal clear, TOP joined a war without a CB (except for "we consider them a threat" which would be in the top 10 of most useless CBs i have ever read) and without a treaty connection. They declared on an uninvolved party which had been trying to meditate and close the conflict from day 1. Frankly there is no way you can justify that and make CnG the wrong party.
[/quote]
And Athens had how many CBs with CnG's full backing?

[Bob Janova]

[quote]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[/quote]
No. Obviously C&G did not manipulate TOP and IRON (apart from by not informing them that they shouldn't declare just before a peace accord). What C&G manipulated was the [i]existing war[/i], by pressuring the main front to come to peace and preparing to pull STA and NpO to the other side, in order to get a position to roll TOP and IRON, once they found out about the attack.

James I, if you ask any TOPper at least (not sure about IRON or TORN, though TORN posters have said it), they'll tell you that the pre-emptive attack was a major error and they won't be doing that again. (Doch, TOP did not pre-emptively attack in the BLEU war, they just attacked Polar straight up. IRON and some others did pre-emptively attack BLEU members though.)

[quote]That is a chain of events. That isn't evidence that \m/ decided they should accept Grub's offer because of TOP/IRON.[/quote]
Archon outright states in the OP here that he 'stepped up' the pressure on those talks because of TOP/IRON.

I wouldn't worry about serious conversation with Krack, he already said in another thread that he would grind the PEA into dust, and so there's no sense with reasoning with him.

[quote]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]
Good words and applicable to both sides. TOP/IRON should not have jumped C&G because of seeing them as an imminent threat in this war; C&G should not roll TOP/IRON into the ground because of seeing them as a threat in a nebulous future. The difference is that one of those is in the past, and not changeable now.

[quote]I guess consultation could equate to being told about a plan, disagreeing with the plan and then being told that your opinion is noted but the decision has already been made and the plan that you disagree with and point out as incredibly stupid is going to be followed anyway. So yeah, I guess you could say NSO was consulted. [/quote]
Lol, okay. Well, I guess that's more evidence that this whole thing is driven by incompetence and over-confidence and not by malice, even if it is laughable

[TECUMSEH]

[quote]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.[/quote]

I wonder what the alliances who are, well, actually fighting TOP think of its "military puffery." (To be fair, I suspec usage of an unfamiliar term).

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='necAnt' date='22 February 2010 - 01:27 PM' timestamp='1266845260' post='2197171']
True in a way, but the apology was done under immense pressure by, if i remember right, your King and some other alliances, so you may understand that i still have no 100% faith in it, but i will give them the chance to proove me wrong.
However Krack war right with 1 thing, we are drifting apart from the real point of the thread, and i only wanted to use Athen as an example for the other side, so if you agree, we drop this discussion in here, and if needed send each other some letterbugs (we ants have found out they are far supperior to doves, as they are cheaper and smaller ).
[/quote]

Yet another completely wrong, and foolish statement concerning the immediate days after the Ni! raid. The truth, I suppose, is irrelevant, as people have deemed to hold to their belief of events into perpetuity. Those of us who saw the Athens forums before any "pressure" from our allies, know the truth about what happened, and where Athens remorse came from.

[neneko]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 February 2010 - 03:18 PM' timestamp='1266848324' post='2197221']
No. Obviously C&G did not manipulate TOP and IRON (apart from by not informing them that they shouldn't declare just before a peace accord). What C&G manipulated was the [i]existing war[/i], by pressuring the main front to come to peace and preparing to pull STA and NpO to the other side, in order to get a position to roll TOP and IRON, once they found out about the attack.

James I, if you ask any TOPper at least (not sure about IRON or TORN, though TORN posters have said it), they'll tell you that the pre-emptive attack was a major error and they won't be doing that again. (Doch, TOP did not pre-emptively attack in the BLEU war, they just attacked Polar straight up. IRON and some others did pre-emptively attack BLEU members though.)


Archon outright states in the OP here that he 'stepped up' the pressure on those talks because of TOP/IRON.

I wouldn't worry about serious conversation with Krack, he already said in another thread that he would grind the PEA into dust, and so there's no sense with reasoning with him.


Good words and applicable to both sides. TOP/IRON should not have jumped C&G because of seeing them as an imminent threat in this war; C&G should not roll TOP/IRON into the ground because of seeing them as a threat in a nebulous future. The difference is that one of those is in the past, and not changeable now.


Lol, okay. Well, I guess that's more evidence that this whole thing is driven by incompetence and over-confidence and not by malice, even if it is laughable
[/quote]
Wait so we manipulated the war both by not telling TIFDTT about the imminent peace and for discussing peace after they attacked? You'd think the two would be mutually exclusive. Either peace was imminent or we just started pushing for it after TIFDTT attacked. You can't have both.

TOP made it clear that their feelings of us being a threat was not related to the ongoing conflict so stop trying to cram "they felt cng was a threat in the current conflict" in everywhere because no matter how many times you say it, it's not going to be true.

The rest of your post is just stuff I've read and replied to countless times by now (why do you never write back? do you hate me? ;_; ) so I won't bother doing it again.

Edited February 22, 2010 by neneko

[D34th]

[quote name='HHAYD' date='21 February 2010 - 04:58 PM' timestamp='1266782326' post='2195357']
Here ya go!:

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80162

And if you are too lazy to click on the link:
[/quote]

Looks like you didn't understood my request.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='neneko' date='22 February 2010 - 10:24 AM' timestamp='1266852251' post='2197283']TOP made it clear that their feelings of us being a threat was not related to the ongoing conflict[/quote]
No, they didn't. It's pretty obvious that C&G feels that this is true, otherwise you wouldn't be meatshielding for Superfriends, but it isn't true.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='shahenshah' date='22 February 2010 - 01:48 AM' timestamp='1266824880' post='2196901']
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 ;/.


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.
[/quote]

you do know that peace was always on the table don't you? seriously, in most wars talks are conducted at some point in the war. instead of waiting to be told things, you could actually get off your collective @#$% and ask questions... unless of course that is just way too difficult and would interfere with your plan to hit CnG. i mean, from the sounds of it, ya'll were so focused on war, that it seems if you did know peace was about to happen, you would have still struck. not much else explains the incompetence surrounding this whole operation.

you put blame on CnG for not telling you something... seriously? the people you are planning on attacking with little to no reason? the people that your alliance abandoned an ally in need, just so you can hit them? yeah, CnG should have totally told you anything that you yourself could not have asked about, since ya know, peace was on the table the entire war (at least on Polaris's side).


[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 February 2010 - 08:18 AM' timestamp='1266848324' post='2197221']
No. Obviously C&G did not manipulate TOP and IRON (apart from by not informing them that they shouldn't declare just before a peace accord). What C&G manipulated was the [i]existing war[/i], by pressuring the main front to come to peace and preparing to pull STA and NpO to the other side, in order to get a position to roll TOP and IRON, once they found out about the attack.[/quote]

wait, so now CnG did not manipulate TOP/IRON but instead got peace arranged for Polaris and their other allies. still not seeing much manipulation really. just seeing strategy used by CnG and the strategy used by TOP/IRON blowing up in their face.

[quote](Doch, TOP did not pre-emptively attack in the BLEU war, they just attacked Polar straight up. IRON and some others did pre-emptively attack BLEU members though.)[/quote]

heh. i was only tryin to state that BLEU was preemptively struck. whoops. either way, TOP, Gremlins, and others did attack Polaris with a reason of Polaris was a "threat".

[quote]Good words and applicable to both sides. TOP/IRON should not have jumped C&G because of seeing them as an imminent threat in this war; C&G should not roll TOP/IRON into the ground because of seeing them as a threat in a nebulous future. The difference is that one of those is in the past, and not changeable now.[/quote]

while i agree, TOP/IRON would have to actually do something to be considered a non-threat. thus far, they have not done much really.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Dochartaigh

[Bob Janova]

[quote]Wait so we manipulated the war both by not telling TIFDTT about the imminent peace and for discussing peace after they attacked?[/quote]
Exactly so. You [i]made[/i] the peace imminent when you heard about the PEA and pressured the other fronts to reach it. Ironically, peace was [i]not[/i] imminent when TOP/IRON came up with the 'strategy' (the peace talks were well stalled despite pushing from other parties for several days), but when you heard about their entrance, you decided to push hard for peace on the other fronts and also not to tell the PEA that you were doing so.

[quote]not seeing much manipulation really. just seeing strategy[/quote]
Manipulating the situation to your advantage is strategic.

[quote]TOP made it clear that their feelings of us being a threat was not related to the ongoing conflict so stop trying to cram "they felt cng was a threat in the current conflict" in everywhere because no matter how many times you say it, it's not going to be true.[/quote]
Hey, 'you can say it as much as you like, it doesn't make it true' is my line . The pre-emptive attack was, well, pre-emptive, because they felt that you were an immediate threat; some of the reason they felt that you were an immediate threat was because of your long history of hostility and that you'd take advantage of an ongoing war to hit them. (Yes, very ironic.) The two things are not mutually exclusive.

[MagicalTrevor]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 February 2010 - 04:59 PM' timestamp='1266857975' post='2197424']
Exactly so. You [i]made[/i] the peace imminent when you heard about the PEA and pressured the other fronts to reach it. Ironically, peace was [i]not[/i] imminent when TOP/IRON came up with the 'strategy' (the peace talks were well stalled despite pushing from other parties for several days), but when you heard about their entrance, you decided to push hard for peace on the other fronts and also not to tell the PEA that you were doing so.
[/quote]
As one of the mediators of the peace talks i can tell you that my dedication to those talks didnt stop until the agreement was made. Dont speak as though you have information which simply does not exist. I've let you go around spreading falsities for a while now but frankly i'm getting tired of it. Either produce some evidence to back your claims or stop preaching.

[neneko]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 February 2010 - 05:59 PM' timestamp='1266857975' post='2197424']
Exactly so. You [i]made[/i] the peace imminent when you heard about the PEA and pressured the other fronts to reach it. Ironically, peace was [i]not[/i] imminent when TOP/IRON came up with the 'strategy' (the peace talks were well stalled despite pushing from other parties for several days), but when you heard about their entrance, you decided to push hard for peace on the other fronts and also not to tell the PEA that you were doing so.
[/quote]
So we should have told them about peace that wasn't imminent to prevent their attack wich led to us making the peace imminent? That makes sense.. I guess.

As for the peace talks being stalled I'm not sure if you actually believe this yourself (and someone lied to you) or if you're just making stuff up. Peace talks were on-going even before the DoW.

Why do you insist on bending facts in every post? It makes you come off as insincere and manipulative.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 February 2010 - 10:59 AM' timestamp='1266857975' post='2197424']
Exactly so. You [i]made[/i] the peace imminent when you heard about the PEA and pressured the other fronts to reach it. Ironically, peace was [i]not[/i] imminent when TOP/IRON came up with the 'strategy' (the peace talks were well stalled despite pushing from other parties for several days), but when you heard about their entrance, you decided to push hard for peace on the other fronts and also not to tell the PEA that you were doing so.


Manipulating the situation to your advantage is strategic.


Hey, 'you can say it as much as you like, it doesn't make it true' is my line . The pre-emptive attack was, well, pre-emptive, because they felt that you were an immediate threat; some of the reason they felt that you were an immediate threat was because of your long history of hostility and that you'd take advantage of an ongoing war to hit them. (Yes, very ironic.) The two things are not mutually exclusive.
[/quote]

well at least we are finally off of that ridiculous thought train that somehow CnG manipulated TOP/IRON into attacking CnG...

as for the whole manipulating the situation to your advantage is strategic bit... so then i take it you will most assuredly agree that TOP/IRON were attempting to manipulate the situation to their advantage in their preemptive strike? ya know the fact that CnG was in an extremely weak position due to many of their allies being involved in a war and all that?

so how about we get off the whole manipulation bit as it is pretty useless considering given your whole manipulation=strategy bit, both sides attempted it, only CnG actually succeeded in it. either way, TOP/IRON are obviously guilty of the same stigma you are trying to push onto CnG.

[Archon]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 February 2010 - 09:18 AM' timestamp='1266848324' post='2197221']
James I, if you ask any TOPper at least (not sure about IRON or TORN, though TORN posters have said it), they'll tell you that the pre-emptive attack was a major error and they won't be doing that again.
[/quote]

Why do I feel like the only reason that opinion only exists because this war did not go well for them, and for no other reason?

[LiquidMercury]

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='22 February 2010 - 11:30 AM' timestamp='1266859814' post='2197479']
Why do I feel like the only reason that opinion only exists because this war did not go well for them, and for no other reason?
[/quote]

I stand by my decision to pre-emp. Was it flawed? Yes. Did it have strategical thinking behind it in regards to military planning? Of course. Did I come up with this decision because I felt as though CnG's trolling was best stopped now? No, not in the least. While some may believe that CnG has indeed been a threat towards TOP's SoI, I for one just simply felt as though if we had gone in on Fark via IRON, SF would of been fully engaged, leaving CnG to come over the top and go through like a wrecking ball for our inability to choose targets due to nuclear anarchy. Add this to the fact that those currently engaged with CnG had the least treaty tension towards CnG in comparison with others who were at war (we had less treaties tying us to CnG, Polar and others had less treaties tying them to SF) that it made strategical sense to have the war go like that. Is the political fall out from a pre-emp worth the military strategy? Debatable, looking at the situation now, I'd probably lean towards No, but there could be times when it most definitely would be the way to go. My decision to pre-emp was indeed truly to back Polaris, to win a war, and not because of some political tensions amongst parties that may or may not exist. Had things played out as I hoped, it would of been a long war that may or may not have ended in victory (yes many will say NO! YOU WOULD OF LOST! but I like to think I can look at it from a relatively objective viewpoint and say that there were decent odds had things played out as they should of, i.e. polaris not playing russian roulette with their reputation). Yes there was political tension between TOP/CnG, to say otherwise would be naive. Was it a factor in choosing to pre-emp for me? Not at all. Does this mean that others would not justify a pre-emp in their minds because of political tension? Of course not, I'm sure some used that as justification to going along with me on this. That's all I got.

[Heft]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='22 February 2010 - 10:42 AM' timestamp='1266856977' post='2197397']
you do know that peace was always on the table don't you? seriously, in most wars talks are conducted at some point in the war. instead of waiting to be told things, you could actually get off your collective @#$% and ask questions... unless of course that is just way too difficult and would interfere with your plan to hit CnG. i mean, from the sounds of it, ya'll were so focused on war, that it seems if you did know peace was about to happen, you would have still struck. not much else explains the incompetence surrounding this whole operation.
[/quote]
This has been covered multiple times by multiple people.

There was no indication on our side that peace was imminent or reasonably close. It is absurd to blame TOP/IRON for not being aware of something none of us were aware of. They had talked to Polar and they had gotten the go ahead to launch. Claiming they should have then gone back and asked how peace talks (that none of us were aware of) were going is retrospectively assigning them a responsibility based on what we know today, instead of what was known then.

[Some-Guy]

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='22 February 2010 - 05:30 PM' timestamp='1266859814' post='2197479']
Why do I feel like the only reason that opinion only exists because this war did not go well for them, and for no other reason?
[/quote]

You'll have to take my word that there were at least a handful of us calling this war a mistake as soon as the target war released to us.

[Bob Janova]

Well LM has put the thinking behind the declaration out in the open now so hopefully that will curtail the things like 'TOP made it clear that their feelings of us being a threat was not related to the ongoing conflict'.

Trevor, the information you seek is in the OP. Archon says [i]"I will also note that we stepped up our efforts [for peace on the NpO-\m/ front] once we learned there was a chance of an opportunistic strike against the Complaints and Grievances Union"[/i]. I'm sure there were people (like yourself) mediating there the whole time, but not until Archon applied official (and strong I imagine) C&G pressure did \m/ change their position. Remember the 'wrong' vs 'inappropriate' argument? That sort of thing had been stalling it for several days before Archon rode in to say, essentially, stop messing around and peace this out before TOP/IRON get here.

[quote]as for the whole manipulating the situation to your advantage is strategic bit... so then i take it you will most assuredly agree that TOP/IRON were attempting to manipulate the situation to their advantage in their preemptive strike?[/quote]
Of course. What's your point? TOP/IRON are not trying to grab the moral high ground and claim that they didn't want the war (and set the rhetorical groundwork for harsh terms).

[Stumpy Jung Il]

Who wants to take bets on how long this argument with last and in how many threads? Im gauging my bet in years.

[Krack]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 February 2010 - 08:18 AM' timestamp='1266848324' post='2197221']
I wouldn't worry about serious conversation with Krack, he already said in another thread that he would grind the PEA into dust, and so there's no sense with reasoning with him.
[/quote]

I said I would "bury" IRON; they got second chance (got off easy in the Karma War) and blew it. I believe the term [i]PEA[/i] is being used to describe TOP and DAWN, as well. If you're gonna characterize my opinion, at least make an effort to get it right.

[Mussolandia]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='22 February 2010 - 05:58 PM' timestamp='1266861523' post='2197516']
Is the political fall out from a pre-emp worth the military strategy? Debatable, looking at the situation now, I'd probably lean towards No, but there could be times when it most definitely would be the way to go. My decision to pre-emp was indeed truly to back Polaris, to win a war, and not because of some political tensions amongst parties that may or may not exist. Had things played out as I hoped, it would of been a long war that may or may not have ended in victory (yes many will say NO! YOU WOULD OF LOST! but I like to think I can look at it from a relatively objective viewpoint and say that there were decent odds had things played out as they should of, i.e. polaris not playing russian roulette with their reputation).[/quote]

The war was extremely winnable. That's about the only point where I'll agree with you. I think it's stubborn not to accept that a preventive attack on uninvolved parties was a mistake. From my perspective, TOP was concerned more with tactics (the who gets to hit who) than with strategy and building momentum.

Then you are not the sole alliance responsible for defeat and you are arguably not the one who made the gravest mistake.