Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[uaciaut]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='02 March 2010 - 06:03 PM' timestamp='1267546022' post='2211344']
Thats not what I said at all. I fully expected the type of reps offers seen.[/quote]

No, you only seem bent on "expecting" these reps because we're somehow awful and because "denial advocates using reps for destroying alliances" (denial for antichrist '10).
I'm expecting terms to be pretty harsh based on how you entered the war against us, not because we're horrible people who want to destroy alliances with reps.

[quote name='bigwoody' date='02 March 2010 - 06:03 PM' timestamp='1267546022' post='2211344']
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.[/quote]

No one wants anyone else thrown off planet bob. That said, you don't go to war for tea and biscuits, you go so that someone gets crushed and defeated and someone else wins. This doesn't have to mean that they're forced off bob, as you're implying.

[quote name='bigwoody' date='02 March 2010 - 06:03 PM' timestamp='1267546022' post='2211344']
And yes, we aren't like you. There wouldn't have been reps had we won. Why would we ask for them?[/quote]

Why were NpO asked for reps back in the noCB war? Or us? Or GPA? All after being pretty smashed into the ground? Why would they be asked for reps given the circumstances? No clue.


[quote name='bigwoody' date='02 March 2010 - 06:03 PM' timestamp='1267546022' post='2211344']
I highly, highly doubt it (if you win).
[/quote]

We already won, we're negotiating your terms, not ours.

Edited March 2, 2010 by uaciaut

[AirMe]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='02 March 2010 - 11:08 AM' timestamp='1267546317' post='2211352']
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.
[/quote]

For some leaders, not necessarily in C&G, this war angers them because all of the alliances that were given white peace banded together and came right back at them. I don't know why this bothers them because IMO you guys seem to lose support as time goes on....same can actually be said for C&G. I at least can understand where those leaders are coming from.

Personally, I think reps should only be levied against the 5 core alliances who launched the preemptive attack.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='uaciaut' date='02 March 2010 - 10:13 AM' timestamp='1267546621' post='2211356']
No, you only seem bent on "expecting" these reps because we're somehow awful and because "denial advocates using reps for destroying alliances" (denial for antichrist '10).
I'm expecting terms to be pretty harsh based on how you entered the war against us, not because we're horrible people who want to destroy alliances with reps.[/quote]
Actually, some people on your side seem to be vocal supporters of reps as a tool of war (by using them to cripple opponents long term).

[quote]No one wants anyone else thrown off planet bob. That said, you don't go to war for tea and biscuits, you go so that someone gets crushed and defeated and someone else wins. This doesn't have to mean that they're thrown off the face of bob for it, as you're implying.[/quote]
Certainly you would never see my supporting such a war.

[quote]Why were NpO asked for reps back in the noCB war? Or us? Or GPA? All after being pretty smashed into the ground? Why would they be asked for reps given the circumstances? No clue.[/quote]
What does that have to do with what I am saying?

Relevant log snippet from before the war, anyways:

[00:23] <%Feanor> White.
[00:23] <%Feanor> Get them off the field.
01[00:24] <~bigwoody> remember we will be judged on our terms when the NEXT war comes
[00:24] <%Feanor> We aren't looking for reps.
[00:24] <Sleepib[TSO]> im not about to ask for reps in this war
01[00:24] <~bigwoody> and since we're likely to win
01[00:24] <~bigwoody> be gracious winners

Yeah ok, laugh it up that I didn't see the backstab coming. But please focus on the point here. We went in looking at this as a front on a coalition war. If you think it is about permanent destruction, you're lying. Also, EPIC foreshadowing.

[quote]We already won, we're negotiating your terms, not ours.
[/quote]
I'm referring to the NEXT war. Whatever the circumstances, whoever you face, whether I am on your side or the other side, I will be floored if CnG doesn't ask for reps if they win, and likely large reps.

[neneko]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='02 March 2010 - 05:06 PM' timestamp='1267546200' post='2211350']
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.
[/quote]
When you're supporting their declaration TOPs reasons for entering is sort of important. Me believing you or not here doesn't really matter (I don't) since you declared in support of people that clearly wanted to take us out.

I wouldn't call it a war for survival I think there's better ways to word it. In this war we're winning but you guys have shown that you'll take any opportunity to try and strike us down when you see a chance. Letting you get off easy would just put us in a worse position for the next time you think you have a good shot at us.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='neneko' date='02 March 2010 - 10:20 AM' timestamp='1267547048' post='2211361']
When you're supporting their declaration TOPs reasons for entering is sort of important. Me believing you or not here doesn't really matter (I don't) since you declared in support of people that clearly wanted to take us out.

I wouldn't call it a war for survival I think there's better ways to word it. In this war we're winning but you guys have shown that you'll take any opportunity to try and strike us down when you see a chance. Letting you get off easy would just put us in a worse position for the next time you think you have a good shot at us.
[/quote]
The relevant logs are above. Call "shoop" if you want, but I don't really have any reason to lie. Your leaders already know anyways.

So, continue to fight your war for relative standing/power if you like. We aren't your main threat to power though, but a protracted war with us certainly won't help.

[Tick1]

[quote name='Thorgrum' date='01 March 2010 - 01:44 PM' timestamp='1267451272' post='2209882']
Well on this point we disagree, TOP lets there people speak freely something I respect. As to thier "true" motives there is one thing I have learned in my time here there is nothing pure anymore. Most actions are derived from a compliation of factors. However its just plain silly to proclaim hitting CnG to destroy them was not a factor or one of the primary ones. The portrayl of the motives now a month in as some deviant plan of those attacked to pull them in and not let them out is a consistant mindset from TOP. Most everything that has occurred since Karma has been woven into some trap, or plot to finally get them.

The sad part for me is they were warned loudly by several people (Janova was one of them) that they were helping to create this reality and bam look what happened. Essentially this guys Items is a rationalization of how TOP executed a plot they believed others were creating, all by themselves. Its shame, because I like a lot of TOP people and hope they find away out of this that brings them out stronger, wiser and less paranoid.
[/quote]

The key words are 'their people,' he on the other hand is currently an applicant. Tarnishing the alliances name before you're even a member is something that shouldn't be tolerated.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Tick1

[Arthur Blair]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='02 March 2010 - 04:23 PM' timestamp='1267547206' post='2211368']
The relevant logs are above. Call "shoop" if you want, but I don't really have any reason to lie. Your leaders already know anyways.

So, continue to fight your war for relative standing/power if you like. We aren't your main threat to power though, but a protracted war with us certainly won't help.
[/quote]


You seem to be working by the assumption that we are hoarding power for other power plays.

We only concern ourselves with our security, which is why we continue to fight against your brutal attacks until you cease to be a threat irregardless of our relative losses compared to the rest of the world. The rest of the world did not attack us to destroy us, you did and that's a fact.

We are fighting for our survival, because leaving your side with a tech advantage means you will come back to murder every man, woman and child in CnG another day.

[neneko]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='02 March 2010 - 05:23 PM' timestamp='1267547206' post='2211368']
The relevant logs are above. Call "shoop" if you want, but I don't really have any reason to lie. Your leaders already know anyways.

So, continue to fight your war for relative standing/power if you like. We aren't your main threat to power though, but a protracted war with us certainly won't help.
[/quote]
The logs might be true but pointless without a context.

You have all the reason in the world to lie about this. The whole reason you're arguing this or try to convince members of other alliances to ditch us (it won't work) is that you want out of this war that you started.

Furthermore I don't particularly care if TORN alone wanted reps or not. We were attacked because TOP and likely RON wanted to take us out. You supported that aggression. It's pretty clear cut to me.

[uaciaut]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='02 March 2010 - 06:18 PM' timestamp='1267546949' post='2211360']
Actually, some people on your side seem to be vocal supporters of reps as a tool of war (by using them to cripple opponents long term).[/quote]

Reps aren't a tool of peace.

Listen, i know you're trying to paint us as the bad guys for asking big reps and whatnot but this is becoming ridiculous. As far as i'm concerned we should start from asking to pay point for point for every point of tech and infra you've destroyed and what we're asking for now would be jack !@#$ compared to that. I think (personal opinion) we'd be pretty entitled to ask for that especially given that i can't see any point in MK's history where they actively tried to destroy TOP or your or politically isolate or any other bs here.


[quote name='bigwoody' date='02 March 2010 - 06:18 PM' timestamp='1267546949' post='2211360']
What does that have to do with what I am saying?[/quote]

Every war that you've won by an overwhelming number so far has resulted in non-insignificant ammounts of reps being sent to you (not directed solely at TORN). You want more info on this - check reps asked by MK in wars we won and check reps asked by yourself or TOP in aggressive wars won by you and compare.

So you're saying you wanted 0 reps as a PR boost for the next war which you weren't sure you were gonna win or not. Good for you, it doesn't mean that
1. Reps wouldn't have been asked for at the end - i'm not obligated to trust what you or TOP's gov stated pre-war. You took the opportunity of hitting us when we were weak, i'm quite entitled to believe you would've weakened us more in thinking we would have remained a threat to you (or finding another reason along the way); this is, of course, personal opinion.
2. We're obligated to give you white peace or easy terms if you got logs saying you would've asked for white peace.
3. That the situation you presented (assured victory on your side) and the one we're in have anything in common.

Basically i like how you're the good guys on paper and we're the bad guys but it's not changing the facts.

Edited March 2, 2010 by uaciaut

[bigwoody]

Ok, showers are nice for reflection. I think I understand where CnG is coming from now.

An open question to CnGers ITT. Please look at things from our POV. If you were entering the war in TOP/IRON/TORN's shoes, would you go in planning to ask for reps if you won? Would you go in planning to ask for white peace? What would you do, in our shoes?

I am convinced by now the answer is that you would ask for reps in our shoes. You would ask for reps to not run the risk that CnG would quickly rebuild and get revenge.

This is why you are completely in genuine disbelief that we would in turn offer white peace. You wouldn't do it, why would we?

Fine. This:

[00:23] <%Feanor> White.
[00:23] <%Feanor> Get them off the field.
01[00:24] <~bigwoody> remember we will be judged on our terms when the NEXT war comes
[00:24] <%Feanor> We aren't looking for reps.
[00:24] <Sleepib[TSO]> im not about to ask for reps in this war
01[00:24] <~bigwoody> and since we're likely to win
01[00:24] <~bigwoody> be gracious winners

...may not convince you. I could logdump all the times I have told people to break the cycle of revenge reps, and strangely this war was the first time I didn't need to convince anyone. I am, if nothing else, very very consistent in my beliefs regarding reps. We truly do not operate like most alliances, or groups of alliances, I fully believe in breaking the cycle of revenge reps. I believed it then, and I will advocate it in the future any time I am in a position to do so.

However, this time I drew the losing card. Any such avocation by me now is seen as self-serving and thusly will not sway anyone. This doesn't shock me, I don't even mind at this point honestly. However, claiming we went in seeking to draw out damaging reps, or permanent destruction, is a plain lie.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='neneko' date='02 March 2010 - 10:38 AM' timestamp='1267548109' post='2211388']
Furthermore I don't particularly care if TORN alone wanted reps or not. We were attacked because TOP and likely RON wanted to take us out. You supported that aggression. It's pretty clear cut to me.
[/quote]
TOP and IRON agreed on white peace before we went in or I wouldn't have come along. I didn't even need to convince them. Our main goal, as Feanor's snip alludes to, was to get CnG out of the war quickly to go and help on other fronts.

Again, I don't really expect you to be swayed, however I will defend the facts.

[Commisar Gaunt]

A quick war favored TOP and IRON. Of course they wanted white peace--if they were merciful to CnG, they would be seen as benevolent heroes only looking out for their friends. But no, you underestimated CnG and the world's response to you attacking an uninvolved bloc "pre-emptively", a bloc which was originally created with survival in mind against you and other NPO bootlickers. You do not just attack CnG out of the blue and walk away.

[neneko]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='02 March 2010 - 05:43 PM' timestamp='1267548390' post='2211395']
TOP and IRON agreed on white peace before we went in or I wouldn't have come along. I didn't even need to convince them. Our main goal, as Feanor's snip alludes to, was to get CnG out of the war quickly to go and help on other fronts.

Again, I don't really expect you to be swayed, however I will defend the facts.
[/quote]
Whether they really told you this or not I have seen logs that tell a whole different tale (not featuring torn though). There is no doubt in my mind that TOPs main motivation for this war was to destroy cng. If things had gone their way we would be facing heavy reps despite being the ones that were attacked. I have no idea if you were in on this whole thing or were just a useful pawn in the later case this situation is bit sadder but either way I think you owe us reps for supporting TOP and RONs aggression.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Commisar Gaunt' date='02 March 2010 - 10:55 AM' timestamp='1267549125' post='2211412']
A quick war favored TOP and IRON. Of course they wanted white peace--if they were merciful to CnG, they would be seen as benevolent heroes only looking out for their friends. But no, you underestimated CnG and the world's response to you attacking an uninvolved bloc "pre-emptively", a bloc which was originally created with survival in mind against you and other NPO bootlickers. You do not just attack CnG out of the blue and walk away.
[/quote]
Ok, now you're just changing your talking point.

The main reason we wanted a quick white peace was to help on other fronts and win the war. But at least you got what we wanted (white peace) right this time, have a gold star.

[Commisar Gaunt]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='02 March 2010 - 11:58 AM' timestamp='1267549305' post='2211416']
Ok, now you're just changing your talking point.

The main reason we wanted a quick white peace was to help on other fronts and win the war. But at least you got what we wanted (white peace) right this time, have a gold star.
[/quote]


Wrong answer! I still believe that they set out to cause as much damage as possible. Causing damage and then wanting white peace (to escape further harm to their warchests of course!) at the end are not mutually exclusive.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='neneko' date='02 March 2010 - 10:56 AM' timestamp='1267549222' post='2211414']
Whether they really told you this or not I have seen logs that tell a whole different tale (not featuring torn though). There is no doubt in my mind that TOPs main motivation for this war was to destroy cng. If things had gone their way we would be facing heavy reps despite being the ones that were attacked. I have no idea if you were in on this whole thing or were just a useful pawn in the later case this situation is bit sadder but either way I think you owe us reps for supporting TOP and RONs aggression.
[/quote]
I've seen no such logs. I'm far more inclined to believe you're making it up to justify your quest to eliminate TOP and IRON from contention in this world for months or years to come.

Frankly, I doubt such intents could be kept secret anyways. It would have gotten around, and had I heard of such I would have simply not entered the war that way (though we would have ended up in it regardless, honestly, in the support of other allies).

And, AGAIN, this isn't even about arguing the reps, there are plenty of places that is being argued. I am simply defending the facts, and the fact is this war was not a war of conquest like you wish to paint it.

[uaciaut]

[quote name='Commisar Gaunt' date='02 March 2010 - 07:01 PM' timestamp='1267549492' post='2211423']
Wrong answer! I still believe that they set out to cause as much damage as possible. Causing damage and then wanting white peace (to escape further harm to their warchests of course!) at the end are not mutually exclusive.
[/quote]

Shhh, war isn't about causing damage to your opponent, it's about declaring a very swift white peace after you started it - this becomes more obvious if you're losing said war after you thought you'd win.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Commisar Gaunt' date='02 March 2010 - 11:01 AM' timestamp='1267549492' post='2211423']
Wrong answer! I still believe that they set out to cause as much damage as possible. Causing damage and then wanting white peace (to escape further harm to their warchests of course!) at the end are not mutually exclusive.
[/quote]
Lets assume the sneaky business never happened, and the Polar-\m/ War continued. Had you desired white peace w/o re-entry after a week in that war, it would have happened, period. It would have been a dream scenario, in fact.

We don't have this obsession with C&G that you like to think we have. Frankly, even after all C&G has threatened us with, there are other alliances we are watching more closely than you after this war ends.

Edited March 2, 2010 by bigwoody

[Commisar Gaunt]

Listen here bigwoody. Throughout your long and illustrious history, you and your buds have trailed on the coattails of stronger alliances than you and received reps extorted from those whom you've aggressively attacked. Now that taking reps isn't the politically correct thing to do when you're on the aggressive side, of course you would say you wanted white peace from the start.

The tables have turned. You attacked us first, you get to pay for the housekeeping. Just because your little aggressive stunt backfired doesn't mean that you're the brave heroes in this situation, fighting off a monstrously aggressive force who was always hell bent on your destruction. Until you've lived under the threat of that for most of your alliance's history, then you can talk. Until then, reap some karma.

[neneko]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='02 March 2010 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1267549562' post='2211426']
I've seen no such logs. I'm far more inclined to believe you're making it up to justify your quest to eliminate TOP and IRON from contention in this world for months or years to come.

Frankly, I doubt such intents could be kept secret anyways. It would have gotten around, and had I heard of such I would have simply not entered the war that way (though we would have ended up in it regardless, honestly, in the support of other allies).

And, AGAIN, this isn't even about arguing the reps, there are plenty of places that is being argued. I am simply defending the facts, and the fact is this war was not a war of conquest like you wish to paint it.
[/quote]
Well I have almost as much reason to lie here as you do so there's no reason to take my word for it.

The intention weren't kept secret. Actually they're pretty well known and accepted by most people on both sides. Of course we'll still see people like you just now that try to dispute it for pr points but I'm pretty sure you actually know it too.

What this war is was pretty nicely summed up in TOPs DoW. You can try to 'correct' that all you want now but it doesn't change the facts. Your side proudly told us exactly what this war was about all the way up until they realised they messed up. Then suddenly we got a new story. Do you honestly expect anyone to buy it?

[flak attack]

[quote name='mitchh' date='02 March 2010 - 09:52 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]
The payment we are asking for is less than what your screw up destroyed, does have a guaranteed slot usage and does have a definite end.

[quote name='Methrage' date='02 March 2010 - 11:05 AM' timestamp='1267546121' post='2211347']
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?
[/quote]
Several of our allies have been in this for us from the first days and have taken a lot of damage because of it. When TITFLXQZYRLMT declared on us, they pulled those alliances in

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Commisar Gaunt' date='02 March 2010 - 11:11 AM' timestamp='1267550076' post='2211436']
Listen here bigwoody. Throughout your long and illustrious history, you and your buds have trailed on the coattails of stronger alliances than you and received reps extorted from those whom you've aggressively attacked. Now that taking reps isn't the politically correct thing to do when you're on the aggressive side, of course you would say you wanted white peace from the start.

The tables have turned. You attacked us first, you get to pay for the housekeeping. Just because your little aggressive stunt backfired doesn't mean that you're the brave heroes in this situation, fighting off a monstrously aggressive force who was always hell bent on your destruction. Until you've lived under the threat of that for most of your alliance's history, then you can talk. Until then, reap some karma.
[/quote]
Ahh, when you can't handle it anymore, just puff your chest. Its the truth, and as I said above I can understand why you wouldn't believe it. See you out there.

[quote name='neneko' date='02 March 2010 - 11:11 AM' timestamp='1267550129' post='2211438']
Well I have almost as much reason to lie here as you do so there's no reason to take my word for it.

The intention weren't kept secret. Actually they're pretty well known and accepted by most people on both sides. Of course we'll still see people like you just now that try to dispute it for pr points but I'm pretty sure you actually know it too.

What this war is was pretty nicely summed up in TOPs DoW. You can try to 'correct' that all you want now but it doesn't change the facts. Your side proudly told us exactly what this war was about all the way up until they realised they messed up. Then suddenly we got a new story. Do you honestly expect anyone to buy it?
[/quote]
Plenty do understand it. I've been pretty consistent, if I suddenly was all "GWARRRHRGHN GIVE ME MY BLOOD MONEY" as you claim...that would be pretty odd and hard to believe for anyone who knows me.

At this point you're just recycling talking points. So I'll let what I said above stand for itself, and it is up to the reader to decide.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

So why are you a good guy for expecting to walk into the fight, beat up CnG while their allies are busy, and then walk out? Presumably you were going to use more than harsh language in your attack on them.

[Commisar Gaunt]

Hardly puffing my chest. You seem stuck in your new found role as a martyr, while the dirty laundry in your past clearly shows that you can't take what you dish out. The greatest predictor of future actions are past actions. Why should we believe what you have to say now, while you scramble for PR? Why would we have had any other reason to believe that you guys didn't come in for a chance to bloody us up, like TOP's DoW states?

Edited March 2, 2010 by Commisar Gaunt

[Ardus]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='02 March 2010 - 12:03 PM' timestamp='1267549644' post='2211429']
Lets assume the sneaky business never happened, and the Polar-\m/ War continued. Had you desired white peace w/o re-entry after a week in that war, it would have happened, period. It would have been a dream scenario, in fact.

We don't have this obsession with C&G that you like to think we have. Frankly, even after all C&G has threatened us with, [b]there are other alliances we are watching more closely than you after this war ends.[/b]
[/quote]
I for one am offended by the bold. I feel like I've been cheated on.

Who's the new fling? You can tell me in private if you'd like; I know how the discrete nature of these sort of things only make them better.