Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[neneko]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='02 March 2010 - 11:05 PM' timestamp='1267567754' post='2211736']
We'll never know, because this particular set of circumstances – one group of alliances pre-empting another, in a global war, and the second group finding out about it and manipulating the rest of the war into peace in order to roll the first group
[/quote]
This is exactly what happened. There is no bias here. Seriously janova do you even read what you write yourself anymore? I mean we get it you don't like us but it just makes me laugh every time you try to present that opinion as fact.

TOP took a chance they thought they had to take out cng. Obviously it failed big time and here we are. We're not trying to roll anyone I'd say we're merely trying to [i]defeat[/i] them

[AAAAAAAAAAGGGG]

[quote name='uaciaut' date='02 March 2010 - 02:55 PM' timestamp='1267570763' post='2211834']
No because we weren't in it. That's the thing here.
[/quote]

Well, you were going to be eventually, let's not forget that!

[neneko]

[quote name='AAAAAAAAAAGGGG' date='03 March 2010 - 07:16 AM' timestamp='1267597208' post='2212380']
Well, you were going to be eventually, let's not forget that!
[/quote]
Yes probably. I think it's our right as a sovereign alliance to make that call though.

I thought we covered this in the early days of the war. If I have a cb against an alliance that doesn't automatically mean I have a cb against all its allies (or allies allies in this case).

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='02 March 2010 - 10:18 AM' 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).


Certainly you would never see my supporting such a war.


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.


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.
[/quote]
Sir, I did not give you permission to use logs that included me in them!

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='03 March 2010 - 12:22 AM' timestamp='1267597559' post='2212386']
Sir, I did not give you permission to use logs that included me in them!
[/quote]
Nonsense, didn't you know I faked them to try and score cheap PR points?

IT HAD TO BE SOMEONE, FEANOR!

[raasaa]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='02 March 2010 - 11:18 AM' timestamp='1267546949' post='2211360']
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
[/quote]
I would definitely like to see the entire conversation. Snippets dont usually convey the full picture....

[bigwoody]

[quote name='raasaa' date='03 March 2010 - 01:04 AM' timestamp='1267600063' post='2212415']
I would definitely like to see the entire conversation. Snippets dont usually convey the full picture....
[/quote]
Thats pretty much all there is w/r/t reps.

"Hey guys, let give light or no terms."
*logs*
*other stuff*

I'm not sure what you think transpired..."Ok guys, good acting, now what % of their tech shall we plunder?"

Really, I love the defense brought out against me:
[img]http://a11news.com/images/rep-joe-wilson-shouting-you-lie-at-obama.jpg[/img]

Edited March 3, 2010 by bigwoody

[raasaa]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='03 March 2010 - 02:10 AM' timestamp='1267600468' post='2212423']
Thats pretty much all there is w/r/t reps.

"Hey guys, let give light or no terms."
*logs*
*other stuff*

I'm not sure what you think transpired..."Ok guys, good acting, now what % of their tech shall we plunder?"
[/quote]
Just curious as to what led to that conversation on reps and what was spoken before and after that

[der_ko]

[quote name='raasaa' date='03 March 2010 - 08:23 AM' timestamp='1267601231' post='2212429']
Just curious as to what led to that conversation on reps and what was spoken before and after that
[/quote]
I'd wager good money [i]defending Polar[/i] was mentioned a lot less then crushing C&G was.

Edited March 3, 2010 by der_ko

[Arthur Blair]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='03 March 2010 - 03:11 AM' timestamp='1267586078' post='2212168']
while i understand white peace is not acceptable and i know that TOP/IRON aggressively attacked but i don't get the whole "CnG are fighting a war of survival" bit... i would understand this line if TOP/IRON (this includes all on their side) were the ones winning, but it is clear to anyone with eyes that TOP/IRON are losing. so it is just ridiculous to state that CnG are fighting for their survival. at this moment, TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN/TSO are the ones fighting for their survival and there is simply no way it can be spinned.

i would understand if this was the beginning of the war but essentially within the first week of the war, it was pretty clear that CnG would win. thus, if the victor is clearly known it can in no way shape or form be called a war of survival for the winning side. now, especially with these reps, it is the other side fighting a war of survival.
[/quote]

The enemy is relentless in their attack. Any peace offer we propose is tossed back at us with veiled threats. They refuse to pay us any reparations because what they pay us they count double, they see the world as only our side and theirs in a seemingly eternal struggle. They would rather keep the tech and money to keep doing damage to us than let us have it as reparations for some of the damage they have done. Saber stated as much directly in regards to terms. They will not admit defeat, they will not admit wrongdoing. We have no other options but to fight or die, how is it not a war of survival?

Because we're good at keeping the beast down? It will still get up and rip our throat out if we give it a chance.

And the reparations asked for does not even begin to cover the cost of what we have lost. It isn't by far enough to cover the cost of our technology. More than reasonable considering what they did.


[quote name='Bob Janova' date='02 March 2010 - 10:05 PM' timestamp='1267567754' post='2211736']
And to be honest, C&G would be in a much better position today if they had agreed to a white peace on day 2, whatever reps they manage to squeeze out of TOP/IRON won't rebuild them or bring back all the strength they've lost relative to NPO, Superfriends, NpO or even the Remnant alliances which are out of the war. And that argument applies every day ... the level of reps acceptable to TOP is actually going [b]down[/b] every day that leaves them with less stuff, and C&G is taking damage every day, so each day their post-war position against everybody except TOP/IRON is getting worse.
[/quote]

You seem to assume that we are threatened by these alliances you mention. The only threat to our survival is the TOP/IRON coalition. There is nothing indicating otherwise, unless you know something I don't.

Or do you assume that we will go on to attack these alliances to further our own standing?

Both of these notions are foreign to me. We deal with the real threat of today, not the possible threat of tomorrow. We are generally not aggressive in our military operations.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Arthur Blair

[raasaa]

[quote name='der_ko' date='03 March 2010 - 02:41 AM' timestamp='1267602279' post='2212436']
I'd wager good money [i]defending Polar[/i] was mentioned a lot less then crushing C&G was.
[/quote]
My sentiments exactly. The entire logs before and after that snippet should be loads of fun to read. Without that, the snippet he posted is meaningless.

[Tick1]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='02 March 2010 - 08:57 PM' timestamp='1267563672' post='2211638']
It's pretty hilarious to see people claiming C&G is fighting a war of survival when peace has been available to them, no questions asked, for a month. I hope for your sake (AB in particular) that you're just pushing that for propaganda purposes and you don't actually believe it.


FOK (though TOP wouldn't have hit there), Stickmen, R&R, Fark, GOD, PC ... maybe I'm forgetting some that were engaged at that time.

It's also sad that people think that TOP 'escaped' in Karma even though they fought on the right side, and that IRON 'escaped' despite paying billions in reps and having their top tier smashed.

Edit: Odin, yes, of course 'rolling' is subjective, but when you're outnumbered in NS 10:1 and your opponents are pushing harsh terms, that counts in my book. If TOP/IRON aren't getting rolled then MK didn't get rolled in noCB, and GPA didn't get rolled by Continuum.
[/quote]

You're quite a funny person . Complaints & Grievance isn't fighting for survival currently, they are fighting to solid ate their survival down the road. If they let TOP off the hook they will more than likely rebuild within seconds and come back at C&G in the midst of the night. Currently C&G does not have the money to rebuild as quickly as TOP and will be on the losing side the next time around. Without demanding reparations they are screwing themselves quite epically for the next time TOP decides to 'Preemptively Attack' them.

Also getting rolled means you never had a chance from the start, as far as I can tell TOP/IRON had quite a good shot at destroying C&G from the start of this war. The only reason they failed was because they decided to take a 'Preemptive' route. Had they not done this, the whole entire war would've taken a different route and you'd therefor be complaining that TOP/IRON weren't giving C&G white peace. So please Bob, leave your opinions out of this since you only seem to grasp the facts that you can see rather than things that may have happened.

[Oktavian]

[quote name='Tick1' date='03 March 2010 - 02:26 PM' timestamp='1267622986' post='2212557']
You're quite a funny person . Complaints & Grievance isn't fighting for survival currently, they are fighting to solid ate their survival down the road. If they let TOP off the hook they will more than likely rebuild within seconds and come back at C&G in the midst of the night. Currently C&G does not have the money to rebuild as quickly as TOP and will be on the losing side the next time around. Without demanding reparations they are screwing themselves quite epically for the next time TOP decides to 'Preemptively Attack' them.

Also getting rolled means you never had a chance from the start, as far as I can tell TOP/IRON had quite a good shot at destroying C&G from the start of this war. The only reason they failed was because they decided to take a 'Preemptive' route. Had they not done this, the whole entire war would've taken a different route and [b]you'd therefor be complaining that TOP/IRON weren't giving C&G white peace.[/b] So please Bob, leave your opinions out of this since you only seem to grasp the facts that you can see rather than things that may have happened.
[/quote]

THe difference being, that they would be getting white peace.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Oktavian

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Oktavian' date='03 March 2010 - 09:57 AM' timestamp='1267628442' post='2212598']
THe difference being, that they would be getting white peace.
[/quote]
What gives you the right to attack someone out of the blue while their friends are busy with impunity?

[AirMe]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='03 March 2010 - 10:05 AM' timestamp='1267628964' post='2212605']
What gives you the right to attack someone out of the blue while their friends are busy with impunity?
[/quote]

No one has been able to competently explain this.

[Oktavian]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='03 March 2010 - 04:05 PM' timestamp='1267628964' post='2212605']
What gives you the right to attack someone out of the blue while their friends are busy with impunity?
[/quote]
The legality of this preemtive attack has already been discussed ad nauseum, so you either think the reasoning behind it is sound or you don't.
Either way I won't bother explaining.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Oktavian' date='03 March 2010 - 11:12 AM' timestamp='1267632937' post='2212662']
The legality of this preemtive attack has already been discussed ad nauseum, so you either think the reasoning behind it is sound or you don't.
Either way I won't bother explaining.
[/quote]
It seems like an important part of "we were going to give you white peace [i]when we attacked you[/i]."

Edited March 3, 2010 by Arcturus Jefferson

[Oktavian]

We entered this war with the decision that we wouldn't extort C&G, but grant them white peace if they surrendered, yes.
This, however, does have nothing to do with our entrance into this war.

[Tick1]

[quote name='Oktavian' date='03 March 2010 - 02:57 PM' timestamp='1267628442' post='2212598']
THe difference being, that they would be getting white peace.
[/quote]

That's easy to say when you're on the wrong end of the spear . Anyhow whether or not you can validate your preemptive strike to the public doesn't matter. The only person you need to validate your move with is Complaints and Grievance, but I don't believe you can validate your move in any way shape or form. So your best bet would be to pay reparations, but you guys are also to stubborn to give into their demands so I see this conflict going on for another month.

Edit: Do you really think IRON/TOP would give Complaints & Grievance white peace if they had used a CB such as a preemptive strike to declare war upon them? I don't think so, we aren't talking about your white peace after you declared war upon them. That should be a given, but since you are losing this war that you guys started you should be required to pay reparations.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Tick1

[Rocky Horror]

You know, I'm willing to accept that TOP&IRON would give CnG white peace if they had won this war.

It's the very least that could be expected. The very least considering your CB and the history of the game.

Congratulations on not being the most dickhattish alliances in the history of the game. But the fact is we are not acting in the same circumstances, and so our claim to reparations is a fairer one.

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Oktavian' date='03 March 2010 - 12:01 PM' timestamp='1267635871' post='2212710']
We entered this war with the decision that we wouldn't extort C&G, but grant them white peace if they surrendered, yes.[/quote]

Re-read the TOP declaration. If you can't see why C&G might hold a grudge over that, then there's no point in continuing to speak at cross-purposes. (Which is what most of this thread consists of....people stubbornly refusing to see what 'the other guy' is saying.)

[quote]This, however, does have nothing to do with our entrance into this war.[/quote]

Perhaps, but it will have everything to do with your exit from it. Again....a point that is seemingly lost on everyone in TOP, IRON, etc.

[Tick1]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='03 March 2010 - 05:10 PM' timestamp='1267636423' post='2212722']
You know, I'm willing to accept that TOP&IRON would give CnG white peace if they had won this war.

It's the very least that could be expected. The very least considering your CB and the history of the game.

Congratulations on not being the most dickhattish alliances in the history of the game. But the fact is we are not acting in the same circumstances, and so our claim to reparations is a fairer one.
[/quote]

Yes, but they are trying to claim that the preemptive strike should not be considered a so called aggressive attack. They are trying to claim that it is a defensive attack that was bound to happen down the road. The only problem is they can't predict the future. So in essence they are claiming that going from step A-C is the same thing as going to steps A-B-C, the problem is they aren't the same steps. Step B must be there in order to get to step C.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Tick1

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='03 March 2010 - 11:10 AM' timestamp='1267636423' post='2212722']
You know, I'm willing to accept that TOP&IRON would give CnG white peace if they had won this war.

It's the very least that could be expected. The very least considering your CB and the history of the game.

Congratulations on not being the most dickhattish alliances in the history of the game. But the fact is we are not acting in the same circumstances, and so our claim to reparations is a fairer one.
[/quote]
So you'll drop the absurd claim that you're fighting for your survival?

Cool.

[Tick1]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='03 March 2010 - 05:24 PM' timestamp='1267637303' post='2212744']
So you'll drop the absurd claim that you're fighting for your survival?

Cool.
[/quote]

Once again you tend to argue your point with someone that can't help you.

[neneko]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='03 March 2010 - 06:24 PM' timestamp='1267637303' post='2212744']
So you'll drop the absurd claim that you're fighting for your survival?

Cool.
[/quote]
How does that even relate? The war for survival was brought up because TOP are likely to take the next chance they get to bloody us when they think they'll win.