Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Chalaskan' date='02 March 2010 - 04:17 AM' timestamp='1267521643' post='2211123']

TOP didn't enter this war for any other reason but to back a moralist front. It calculated the best strategy and then was stabbed in the back. Then bandwagons took over rather then desires to make this world change, as had been what most in the world said they wanted.
[/quote]

No they pretty much came out and said it in their DoW, TOP thought it was their best chance to take out C&G

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

They dress it up well, but yea... its pretty obvious.

[Sir Keshav IV]

[quote name='Chalaskan' date='01 March 2010 - 08:26 AM' timestamp='1267432188' post='2209752']
When Karma started, those fighting for the truths said they would not want reps from a war again. Then you have Grem against the codex they started, and C&G stating they would never be like NPO/Heg saying they would never do that...yet they try to deal reps that would be similar to those they opposed at the beginning of this war.

Here are the facts...
1. TOP and IRON entered this war through an opportunistic move
2. Opposition didn't roll over and die
3. NpO who started the moralistic crusade reversed gears seeing they could lose, and fought on both fronts of this war
4. Grem and company require reps even though they stated by codex which is pretty much interpreted in any way they want

Gimme a break.
[/quote]

Fixed mate. TOP and IRON was opportunistic, we don't roll over and die. We got our allies in and TOP/IRON got hit pretty badly. We do deserve Reps for the !@#$ TOP/IRON pulled. NpO weren't TOP's allies on paper, therefore NpO didn't have to do anything for TOP. I would never trust a man's word unless its on paper. About the codex some Gre member said its the interpretion of the Gre gov. Its however they wish to intepret it, but is not something I know of to comment much.

Sorry mate, sometimes its better to post the real facts.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]Well seeing that you lost that argument I'd say that wouldn't be a very good idea, now would it?[/quote]
I didn't lose, we both agreed that we were saying the same thing in different ways. You trying to claim that it wasn't about Polar at the start is ignoring 3/4 of the DoW.

[quote]The interpretation of the Codex is for Gre gov you know that[/quote]
What? The interpretation of the Codex is for all of Grämlins, and in this case it's not even questionable – you attacked IRON, with no treaty tie, it's an aggressive war whatever definition you use and you therefore can't demand reps.

[quote]every little crisis they have pressured, cajouled and frankly bullied those they had ties to in an effort to get the ball rolling, the last time they tried it it cost them their ties to FOK and it tore Cit apart[/quote]
The last time (TPF war) SG attacked TPF with the intention of destroying ex-Hegemony and by association TOP. It was really the rest of you that tore Cit apart by not sticking with it in an overall defensive situation.

[quote]You claim CnG is rolling them, honestly it looks like Iron and Top are fighting well and doing monumental damage the likes of which our planet has never seen. I think you said somewhere else they were ready to continue fighting indefinately. Based on thier choice to declare in the first place, who is getting rolled is highly subjective.[/quote]
Who attacked first doesn't affect who's getting rolled. NPO attacked first in Karma, and it's fair to say they got rolled. When you've got 20 alliances on you, the other side feels able to offer the largest reps in history and have repeatedly rejected peace, it's pretty clear which side is getting rolled.

Edit: Although indeed, they are doing significant damage to C&G, which is why it's so strange that C&G have kept the war going for so long. But don't tell me that C&G aren't going to win.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Bob Janova

[Arthur Blair]

[quote name='Bob Janova']
Edit: Although indeed, they are doing significant damage to C&G, which is why it's so strange that C&G have kept the war going for so long. But don't tell me that C&G aren't going to win.
[/quote]

It's not strange from our perspective, it's just strange from the perspective that we're conducting a for-profit war against a defeated enemy.

We aren't though.

We're conducting a war for survival against an enemy that keeps attacking no matter how hard we beat them down. Even when they are so clearly defeated they keep launching attacks and refuse to both see the error of their ways and pay for their crimes. The war could end today, but TOP makes that impossible.

TOP still wants to murder every man, woman and child in CnG. Until that changes, the war must rage on. Not by choice, but by necessity.

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='02 March 2010 - 01:21 PM' timestamp='1267536285' post='2211239']
Who attacked first doesn't affect who's getting rolled. NPO attacked first in Karma, and it's fair to say they got rolled. When you've got 20 alliances on you, the other side feels able to offer the largest reps in history and have repeatedly rejected peace, it's pretty clear which side is getting rolled.

Edit: Although indeed, they are doing significant damage to C&G, which is why it's so strange that C&G have kept the war going for so long. But don't tell me that C&G aren't going to win.
[/quote]

Depends on your definition of rolled. As I recall NPO and its allies kept a lot of people in peace mode and didnt come out to fight, had they then whom got rolled is subjective based on definition which you dont determine bob. A lot of your points are subjective at best (well accept maybe the codex) and one can argue due to the preemptive action of TOP/IRON CnG got rolled and are in a worse position they are in when they started, all based on, again a subjective principal of whom was going to attack when.

Im not telling you C&G arent going to win, but "winning" is subjective once again "hey your entire top tier has just been negated but you won! you rolled them!!" This isnt black and white bob and no matter how loudly you shout that it in fact is its not going to change the fact that CnG is getting hammered from an offensive attack. The fact they want thier attacked nations restored is reasonable, IMHO. When you make a mistake you have to pay, and in the end the colleteral damage on both sides cant be remunerated so stating one side got rolled over another, again is far to black in white.

[mitchh]

[quote name='Arthur Blair' date='02 March 2010 - 08:31 AM' timestamp='1267540479' post='2211271']
We're conducting a war for survival against an enemy that keeps attacking no matter how hard we beat them down. Even when they are so clearly defeated they keep launching attacks and refuse to both see the error of their ways and pay for their crimes. The war could end today, but TOP makes that impossible.

TOP still wants to murder every man, woman and child in CnG. Until that changes, the war must rage on. Not by choice, but by necessity.
[/quote]
I don't see how you can call it a war for survival when some 20+ alliances are fighting five.

We know we messed up and are willing to pay. Just not terms that have no guaranteed slot usage and could potentially never end.

Because we won't accept your terms, it is TOP's fault that the war continues? Negotiation goes both ways and CnG hasn't accepted any of our offers either. Contrary to popular belief, we don't want to destroy CnG.

[uaciaut]

[quote name='mitchh' date='02 March 2010 - 04:52 PM' timestamp='1267541785' post='2211290']
Because we won't accept your terms, it is TOP's fault that the war continues? Negotiation goes both ways and CnG hasn't accepted any of our offers either. Contrary to popular belief, we don't want to destroy CnG.
[/quote]

Going out of your way to pre-emptively attack while making sure one of our biggest ally won't defend us kind of goes against that, doesn't it?

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Arthur Blair' date='02 March 2010 - 08:31 AM' timestamp='1267540479' post='2211271']
It's not strange from our perspective, it's just strange from the perspective that we're conducting a for-profit war against a defeated enemy.

We aren't though.

We're conducting a war for survival against an enemy that keeps attacking no matter how hard we beat them down. Even when they are so clearly defeated they keep launching attacks and refuse to both see the error of their ways and pay for their crimes. The war could end today, but TOP makes that impossible.

TOP still wants to murder every man, woman and child in CnG. Until that changes, the war must rage on. Not by choice, but by necessity.
[/quote]
That is your talking point, not reality. If survival is all this was about, you could have ended the war at any time. This has been a war of choice, YOUR choice, for a long time.

Conversely, much of what has been said by your side makes it clear we are fighting for our own survival. I fully expect that after this war CnG will be looking for an excuse to reignite the war (especially given their history of hunting for 6 month old, stale CBs) and catch us off guard.

[mitchh]

[quote name='uaciaut' date='02 March 2010 - 09:03 AM' timestamp='1267542413' post='2211305']
Going out of your way to pre-emptively attack while making sure one of our biggest ally won't defend us kind of goes against that, doesn't it?
[/quote]
I was referring to Arthur Blair's post about murdering every man, woman, and child in CnG.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='uaciaut' date='02 March 2010 - 09:03 AM' timestamp='1267542413' post='2211305']
Going out of your way to pre-emptively attack while making sure one of our biggest ally won't defend us kind of goes against that, doesn't it?
[/quote]
Frankly, your leaders know full well this isn't about destroying CnG. This is your talking point, because as many of you freely point out, crippling reps are a great way to nullify TOP for a long, long time. Crippling reps need to be justified if your meatshields are to keep eating nukes for you, so you're trying to spin it as fighting for your survival against some sort of monolithic evil.

I know from the beginning we entered as a part of the Polar War, expecting victory. I secured assurances that we would all offer white peace at the end of this war or you wouldn't have seen TORN enter. Saying you're fighting merely to survive is a crock of !@#$ and you know it. Some of you at least openly admit this is about trying to end TOP and IRON.

[SpiderJerusalem]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='02 March 2010 - 03:13 PM' timestamp='1267543031' post='2211311']
I know from the beginning we entered as a part of the Polar War, [b]expecting victory.[/b]
[/quote]

Wait, what?

Did you even bother to take a look at the alliances on your side?

[bigwoody]

[quote name='SpiderJerusalem' date='02 March 2010 - 09:26 AM' timestamp='1267543829' post='2211318']
Wait, what?

Did you even bother to take a look at the alliances on your side?
[/quote]
Yes I realize certain trust was horribly misplaced. Live and learn. Nevertheless, it is true and relevant.

[SpiderJerusalem]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='02 March 2010 - 03:32 PM' timestamp='1267544174' post='2211321']
Yes I realize certain trust was horribly misplaced. Live and learn. Nevertheless, it is true and relevant.
[/quote]

Well, then I am genuinely curious... Why did you think you would win? What alliance(s) and brilliant masterstrokes would help you win?

[bigwoody]

[quote name='SpiderJerusalem' date='02 March 2010 - 09:36 AM' timestamp='1267544419' post='2211322']
Well, then I am genuinely curious... Why did you think you would win? What alliance(s) and brilliant masterstrokes would help you win?
[/quote]
If it was as simple as pre-empting the CnG front, we would have won. That simple, really. The other fronts were stalemates at worst, and taking away the last fresh alliances waiting to enter would have sealed it.

[uaciaut]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='02 March 2010 - 05:13 PM' timestamp='1267543031' post='2211311']
Frankly, your leaders know full well this isn't about destroying CnG. This is your talking point, because as many of you freely point out, crippling reps are a great way to nullify TOP for a long, long time. Crippling reps need to be justified if your meatshields are to keep eating nukes for you, so you're trying to spin it as fighting for your survival against some sort of monolithic evil.

I know from the beginning we entered as a part of the Polar War, expecting victory. I secured assurances that we would all offer white peace at the end of this war or you wouldn't have seen TORN enter. Saying you're fighting merely to survive is a crock of !@#$ and you know it. Some of you at least openly admit this is about trying to end TOP and IRON.
[/quote]

Wouldn't hold my breath over easy reps. I sure know i wasn't expecting hard reps if any at all in the past from some of the alliances on the other side, given the nature of their overwhelming victories. Reality proved otherwise.

This "get in get a victory get out" thing doesn't work that way and i'd at least expect you to find enough common sense to realize that. Seeking out our permanent destruction doesn't have to be a reason for us to ensure a good victory after we've been declared on from what seemed to you to be a bad position for us. You tried to take advantage of us being in a bad spot and defeat us, you are paying for it.

The meat shield argument. You're hoping our allies will stop fighting for us after a few days worth of nuking. I know they won't. You are entitled of course to think that this will happen and to base your rep negotiation on it though, i guess.

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Chalaskan' date='02 March 2010 - 03:17 AM' timestamp='1267521643' post='2211123']
See, I remember some time ago when Grem were stating they wanted a more moralist Bob, and TOP agreed. Only now, you have no clue what TOP membership is about. I guarantee you if we were winning, we would offer white peace.

Secondly, we were not looking to hit C&G, yet were standing on a moralist front, as you had started to claim with your codex and were hailed by most the planet for. You have fallen far from that.

Spin all the above as you like, those that know me, know I am nothing but honest and frank.
[/quote]Whose morals? Who decided that no reps = morals? It's not just the winners that have the burden of good behaviour on them.

If you enter a war with a motive (and I can't read your minds to place its priority on your list of motives) to destroy CnG, you can't hit them aggressively and then back out when the odds turn against you.

Your situation sucks, but it's not CnG's fault. You don't think about how a mugger's dad might've beaten him or how things are going with his girlfriend, to stretch that awful analogy to breaking point.

[quote name='mitchh' date='02 March 2010 - 08:52 AM' timestamp='1267541785' post='2211290']
I don't see how you can call it a war for survival when some 20+ alliances are fighting five.[/quote]It would be short-sighted not to consider the possibility.

[quote name='mitchh' date='02 March 2010 - 08:52 AM' timestamp='1267541785' post='2211290']We know we messed up and are willing to pay. Just not terms that have no guaranteed slot usage and could potentially never end.[/quote]It's hard to know who to believe on this. Vlad and Saber have made it clear at different points that they would never pay. Avernite has said that anything but white peace could "never" be achieved, on IRC.


[quote name='bigwoody' date='02 March 2010 - 09:08 AM' timestamp='1267542712' post='2211308']
That is your talking point, not reality. If survival is all this was about, you could have ended the war at any time. This has been a war of choice, YOUR choice, for a long time.

Conversely, much of what has been said by your side makes it clear we are fighting for our own survival. I fully expect that after this war CnG will be looking for an excuse to reignite the war (especially given their history of hunting for 6 month old, stale CBs) and catch us off guard.
[/quote]"I assume you will be bad in future so we should base our actions on the worst behaviour we can attribute to you."

'sup pre-emptive strike CBs, good faith negotiations


[quote name='bigwoody' date='02 March 2010 - 09:13 AM' timestamp='1267543031' post='2211311']
Frankly, your leaders know full well this isn't about destroying CnG. This is your talking point, because as many of you freely point out, crippling reps are a great way to nullify TOP for a long, long time. Crippling reps need to be justified if your meatshields are to keep eating nukes for you, so you're trying to spin it as fighting for your survival against some sort of monolithic evil.

I know from the beginning we entered as a part of the Polar War, expecting victory. I secured assurances that we would all offer white peace at the end of this war or you wouldn't have seen TORN enter. Saying you're fighting merely to survive is a crock of !@#$ and you know it. Some of you at least openly admit this is about trying to end TOP and IRON.
[/quote]Well !@#$ if you say so, can't imagine why you might lie.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='uaciaut' date='02 March 2010 - 09:43 AM' timestamp='1267544828' post='2211330']
Wouldn't hold my breath over easy reps. I sure know i wasn't expecting hard reps if any at all in the past from some of the alliances on the other side, given the nature of their overwhelming victories. Reality proved otherwise.[/quote]
No, I fully expected CnG to go for as harsh of reps as they could swing. Denial especially is a vocal supporter of using reps as a tool of destroying alliances.

[quote]This "get in get a victory get out" thing doesn't work that way and i'd at least expect you to find enough common sense to realize that. Seeking out our permanent destruction doesn't have to be a reason for us to ensure a good victory after we've been declared on from what seemed to you to be a bad position for us. You tried to take advantage of us being in a bad spot and defeat us, you are paying for it.[/quote]
Once again, you're basing your stance off your own talking point, not reality. You can come to many conclusions when you start from a false premise.

[quote]The meat shield argument. You're hoping our allies will stop fighting for us after a few days worth of nuking. I know they won't. You are entitled of course to think that this will happen and to base your rep negotiation on it though, i guess.
[/quote]
No, many will continue fighting for a long time, while others peacefully rebuild and work on their position in the post-war world. If you think the next great war is going to be a rematch of this one, you're delusional.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='02 March 2010 - 09:45 AM' timestamp='1267544927' post='2211333']
Well !@#$ if you say so, can't imagine why you might lie.
[/quote]
Anyone who knows me knows I don't do this "reps" thing, really. I am not about blood money. My record on this is consistent.

[uaciaut]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='02 March 2010 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1267545073' post='2211335']
No, I fully expected CnG to go for as harsh of reps as they could swing. Denial especially is a vocal supporter of using reps as a tool of destroying alliances.[/quote] I don't remember him ever declaring that nor do i care what his stance his, this wasn't around what denial thinks of the reps. It's about how you're going in a war with an assured victory and when things turn around you expecting the peace negotiations to go your way, which obviously won't happen.


[quote name='bigwoody' date='02 March 2010 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1267545073' post='2211335']
Once again, you're basing your stance off your own talking point, not reality. You can come to many conclusions when you start from a false premise.
[/quote]

What reality are you talking about? Did you not just say you went in expecting a victory? Is this not because one of our biggest allies was locked in another war at the time AND that you made sure they would not help us? I mean Crymson posted the log of that himself.
So what exactly is this false premise i'm starting from when i am seeing someone putting as much effort as possible in making sure we're weakened enough so that they're assured an easy victory (supposedly followed by no reps lol). How the hell is this a false premise?

[quote name='bigwoody' date='02 March 2010 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1267545073' post='2211335']
No, many will continue fighting for a long time, while others peacefully rebuild and work on their position in the post-war world. If you think the next great war is going to be a rematch of this one, you're delusional.
[/quote]

I don't really care where the next war will find us or TOP, we're not asking for reps with the next war as reason for it.

Edited March 2, 2010 by uaciaut

[neneko]

Oh sweet we're back to people trying to backpedal from one of the reasons they declared this war. Please go on good sirs.

I can't promise I won't pull a quote or two from TOPs DoW. I mean crymson made it way too easy when he stated right there what their reasons for entering was.

Don't let me interfere with petty facts though please keep telling us how you had no ulterior motives and only wanted what was best for polaris.

Edited March 2, 2010 by neneko

[bigwoody]

[quote name='uaciaut' date='02 March 2010 - 09:57 AM' timestamp='1267545677' post='2211339']
I don't remember him ever declaring that nor do i care what his stance his, this wasn't around what denial thinks of the reps. It's about how you're going in a war with an assured victory and when things turn around you expecting the peace negotiations to go your way, which obviously won't happen.[/quote]
Thats not what I said at all. I fully expected the type of reps offers seen.

[quote]What reality are you talking about? Did you not just say you went in expecting a victory? Is this not because one of our biggest allies was locked in another war at the time AND that you made sure they would not help us? I mean Crymson posted the log of that himself.
So what exactly is this false premise i'm starting from when i am seeing someone putting as much effort as possible in making sure we're weakened enough so that they're assured an easy victory (supposedly followed by no reps lol). How the hell is this a false premise?[/quote]
You're saying this was about the "permanent destruction of C&G." This is patently false. You would not see me supporting the permanent destruction of anyone, period. It was a front in a larger war, in reality. You're basing your arguments to me off your own talking points, as if I will suddenly believe you about my own intentions.

And yes, we aren't like you. There wouldn't have been reps had we won. Why would we ask for them?


[quote]I don't really care where the next war will find us or TOP, we're not asking for reps with the next war as reason for it.
[/quote]
I highly, highly doubt it (if you win).

[Sephiroth]

Why not offer peace terms with reps going only to CnG with no restrictions on TOP and IRON while they pay them if you want to rebuild and put an end to this war? Is that even within CnG's power anymore?

[AirMe]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='02 March 2010 - 10:13 AM' timestamp='1267543031' post='2211311']
Frankly, your leaders know full well this isn't about destroying CnG. This is your talking point, because as many of you freely point out, crippling reps are a great way to nullify TOP for a long, long time. Crippling reps need to be justified if your meatshields are to keep eating nukes for you, so you're trying to spin it as fighting for your survival against some sort of monolithic evil.

I know from the beginning we entered as a part of the Polar War, expecting victory. I secured assurances that we would all offer white peace at the end of this war or you wouldn't have seen TORN enter. Saying you're fighting merely to survive is a crock of !@#$ and you know it. Some of you at least openly admit this is about trying to end TOP and IRON.
[/quote]

To quote a great man....

"The point of war is to break stuff."


And in Woody's defense, I do not believe TORN has ever asked for reps from anyone.

Edited March 2, 2010 by AirMe

[bigwoody]

[quote name='neneko' date='02 March 2010 - 10:01 AM' timestamp='1267545897' post='2211343']
Oh sweet we're back to people trying to backpedal from one of the reasons they declared this war. Please go on good sirs.

I can't promise I won't pull a quote or two from TOPs DoW. I mean crymson made it way too easy when he stated right there what their reasons for entering was.

Don't let me interfere with petty facts though please keep telling us how you had no ulterior motives and only wanted what was best for polaris.
[/quote]
The wording of TOP's DOW doesn't have anything to do with me. I know what our intentions were going in. I am not under the impression my word alone is going to sway anyone fighting us. Far from it, those in power already know I am right anyways.

However, claim that CnG is merely fighting for its survival right now is laughable on its face.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='AirMe' date='02 March 2010 - 10:05 AM' timestamp='1267546147' post='2211348']
To quote a great man....

"The point of war is to break stuff."


And in Woody's defense, I do not believe TORN has ever asked for reps from anyone.
[/quote]
The quote in context was "permanently destroy." We were going in to cause damage, (OOC)have fun,(OOC) give white peace and go on with life. We aren't in the permanently destroy game, or even the eliminate in the long-term game, for better or worse.

EDIT: We have asked for reps before, unfortunately. Although in our defense, our reps requests were usually quite small relative to others, and we did white peace before it was cool.

Edited March 2, 2010 by bigwoody