Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[Tick1]

[quote name='neneko' date='03 March 2010 - 05:32 PM' timestamp='1267637774' post='2212751']
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.
[/quote]

Bigwoody thinks the survival after this war is the same thing as the survival during the duration of time.

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Tick1' date='03 March 2010 - 11:15 AM' timestamp='1267636741' post='2212731']
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.
[/quote]My years of collecting Pokémon cards did not prepare me for the term "defensive attack". Nor did my patchy knowledge of Pythagoras prepare me for a+b=c.

CN has rendered being 12 irrelevant.

[quote name='bigwoody' date='03 March 2010 - 11:24 AM' timestamp='1267637303' post='2212744']
So you'll drop the absurd claim that you're fighting for your survival?

Cool.
[/quote]You're a very short-sighted little man.

[raasaa]

[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 [b]white peace if they surrendered[/b], yes.
This, however, does have nothing to do with our entrance into this war.
[/quote]
How do you grant them white peace, if they surrender.

As per your allies, its not white peace if the losing side / opponent surrenders.

Sorry, but i couldn't resist pointing this out

[flak attack]

[quote name='Oktavian' date='03 March 2010 - 12:01 PM' timestamp='1267635871' post='2212710']
This, however, does have nothing to do with our entrance into this war.
[/quote]
Reps have everything to do with your entrance to the war.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='03 March 2010 - 11:40 AM' timestamp='1267638238' post='2212765']
You're a very short-sighted little man.
[/quote]
Not really, if anything I find going after large reps to be short sighted.

We'll see who is right.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]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.[/quote]
That's as paranoid as TOP's and IRON's reasons for attacking you in the first place – and just as absurd. TOP are perhaps likely to attack you in the context of a global war where their interests clearly lie with the victory of one coalition and yours with the victory of the other, though even that is unlikely considering the immediate 'What the hell' reaction from inside TOP when they found out about doing that this time.

If you plan to crush two sanctioned alliances out of paranoia that they may oppose you in the future, then you really are no better than the Hegemony.

[quote]getting rolled means you never had a chance from the start[/quote]
I don't agree with this – since 'getting rolled' doesn't have an agreed definition I guess we just have to agree to disagree on the usage of that word. TOP/IRON/etc are being beaten down, are outnumbered 10:1, and don't stand a chance of winning now, though, and that's been the case since the other fronts were peaced out. (Well maybe not the 10:1, it might only have been 3:1 back then.)

As an aside, the reason they failed was because Grub betrayed them and Archon played a smart strategic game to twist the war around on them, so while the pre-emptive route made that more likely to happen, it isn't directly responsible for the loss. Other people had to take advantage of it for that to happen.

[quote]What gives you the right to attack someone [b]out of the blue[/b] while their friends are busy with impunity? [/quote]
Not this again ... This has become even less true since the previous times it was used, as it's since been established (in the OP of this very thread) that not only were C&G preparing to enter (militarisation, PM, etc) but that they actually knew about the attack.

[quote]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?[/quote]
I believe that TOP would have exerted serious pressure on the other alliances in a similar position to peace that front out once the main dispute of the war was resolved, yes. However, TOP have stated that they are willing to negotiate on reasonable reps so the white peace argument is a straw man at this point.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='neneko' date='03 March 2010 - 11:32 AM' timestamp='1267637774' post='2212751']
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.
[/quote]
Negative. There is one alliance that deserves to be crushed and it doesn't reside in CnG.

[Tick1]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='03 March 2010 - 05:48 PM' timestamp='1267638710' post='2212777']
I don't agree with this – since 'getting rolled' doesn't have an agreed definition I guess we just have to agree to disagree on the usage of that word. TOP/IRON/etc are being beaten down, are outnumbered 10:1, and don't stand a chance of winning now, though, and that's been the case since the other fronts were peaced out. (Well maybe not the 10:1, it might only have been 3:1 back then.)

As an aside, the reason they failed was because Grub betrayed them and Archon played a smart strategic game to twist the war around on them, so while the pre-emptive route made that more likely to happen, it isn't directly responsible for the loss. Other people had to take advantage of it for that to happen.
[/quote]

The odds when TOP & Friends entered the war was at about 3:1 in their favor. Which means they had the upper hand. Now the odds are around 3:1 in C&G's favor. Which means they are on the losing side of the war. At the time they entered they where about to roll C&G. Now you claim that C&G is rolling TOP & Friends even though it's a defensive effort? I don't grasp that.... since rolling someone means your on the offensive attack.

Anyhow... to claim that Grub betrayed them is to state that Grub and them had a written agreement. I guess I missed this, but maybe you'd like to point it out to me? Would someone please quote out the definition of betrayal....?

[quote]Often betrayal is the act of supporting a rival group, or it is a complete break from previously decided upon or presumed norms by one party from the others.[/quote]

Seeing as NpO isn't supporting a rival I don't believe you can really consider it betrayal. Last I check they did uphold their treaty with MK & GR which also doesn't sound like betrayal. Seeing as these where the norms at the current time and are the norms now. I don't grasp your argument Bob.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Arthur Blair' date='03 March 2010 - 01:51 AM' timestamp='1267602919' post='2212440']
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 [b]no other options[/b] but to fight or die, how is it not a war of survival?[/quote]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *takes a breath* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

whew, thanks mate, needed a good laugh. and before anyone states it, no i am not talkin bout white peace either. ya'll can get way the $%&@ lower with those reps and still be fine. as for counting the reps as double, i sure as hell would be too. you think after this war that CnG is gonna all of a sudden be friendly with TOP or IRON or TORN or DAWN or TSO or anyone else that fought on that side? most likely not. maybe a few fringe alliances but the core ones assuredly not. do you think any of the core alliances are gonna fall head over hills with CnG after the way you have conducted this war and yourselves in it? most assuredly not, hell i have become even less fond of you guys than i was before.

fact is, you keep stating how you want to prevent an enemy from ever hitting you again... that labeling will pretty much guarantee that you will gain only the resentment of any alliance you are fighting. this is what NPO did to CnG in the past and now CnG in the second war it has ever won is once again initiating crippling reps with the sole purpose of "security of CnG". i am sorry if that is the exact reason why NPO/Heg used crippling reps and other terms. Sure you aren't using other terms, but Heg-Lite seems to understand how to straddle the line to make themselves not as bad as ex-Heg so that others can salivate over how you aren't as bad.

considering CnG is making themselves known for handing down crippling terms in every war they have won, it does not soften anyone that may have mixed feelings towards CnG at all. so to state you are fighting for survival is again just plain ridiculous. between this war and your terms to TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN/TSO (and everyone else's terms, including my alliance <.<) they are the ones fighting for survival. your pathetic attempt at a spin is solely the cause of CnG and no one elses. i would suggest lowering your reps and see what happens.



[quote]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.[/quote]

frankly, given ya'lls track record, CnG is more likely to go after the "beast" long before the beast hits you again. especially if the "beast" takes the terms offered right now (as of Ejay's blog).

[quote]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]

here we go with this again. seriously, this is all you got for trying to make those crippling terms look reasonable? seriously? rarely in any global war are terms meant to rebuild ever. terms are meant to be punitive, but punitive does not have to be crippling. as for pre-emptive strike, i would say the fact that many of the alliances have lost a crapload of NS would have covered their stupidity more than enough. crippling terms are simply unnecessary. i mean if that is the case, then Athens/GOD/RoK/\m/ seem even more pathetic given they never gave reps to TPF for a half-cocked CB aka aggressive preemptive strike on TPF for basically the same reason TOP gave. yeah, your side is not much better at all, so i would not discuss stupidity when it comes to wars cuz CnG/SF and allies have conducted their own stupid wars. but when they did it, it was "alright and just"... hypocrites.


[quote name='Tick1' date='03 March 2010 - 07:26 AM' 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.[/quote]

for one, you need to get on board with the party line about who is fighting for survival...

two- do you really think TOP would be stupid enough to pull this stunt twice? please. it failed horribly and now TOP knows just how many alliances are willing to stand up for CnG (or how many allies CnG can drag in as meatshields). so to even assume they will "preemptively attack" CnG again is quite ridiculous.

and if CnG does not have they money, they sure as hell have the allies and obviously the slots. thus, they can give less crippling terms to TOP/co and accept aid from their allies instead.

[quote]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.
[/quote]

actually, no TOP/IRON never had a friggin chance in hell. never. unless \m/ would have been too stupid/egotistical to realize that sacrificing their pride some and accepting peace, would basically allow CnG/SF to destroy most of the ex-Heg alliances, including TOP/IRON. that is the only way that TOP/IRON stood a chance. peace was [i]always[/i] on the table for \m/ to accept. ALWAYS. so no, TOP/IRON never stood a chance since other than NSO and the ego of Fark, everyone peaced out quite quickly in that war, freeing up many of CnG's/SF's allies to fight. so yeah, TOP/IRON got rolled and stomped on by any definition you try to use/make up.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Dochartaigh

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='03 March 2010 - 11:56 AM' timestamp='1267639206' post='2212786']
Negative. There is one alliance that deserves to be crushed and it doesn't reside in CnG.
[/quote]Oh, do tell.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='03 March 2010 - 12:48 PM' timestamp='1267638710' post='2212777']
Not this again ... This has become even less true since the previous times it was used, as it's since been established (in the OP of this very thread) that not only were C&G preparing to enter (militarisation, PM, etc) but that they actually knew about the attack.
[/quote]
Ah, of course. Because we heard about the attack and prepared for it, we were clearly conspiring to remove TOP before they became a threat. You seem to be missing out on the fact that TOP had to prove they were a threat by attacking us for anything we did to hurt them.

[i]Hope for the best and prepare for the worst[/i]

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Tick1' date='03 March 2010 - 12:58 PM' timestamp='1267639348' post='2212790']
Anyhow... to claim that Grub betrayed them is to state that Grub and them had a written agreement.
[/quote]
Ummm... what?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/betrayal

What on earth does the word "betrayal" have to do with written agreements?

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='03 March 2010 - 09:05 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]

War. seriously, there was a war going on. preemptive strikes are a viable option. also, if you are implying that there is something wrong and unjust about this action, why did CnG/SF support it when it was Athens/RoK/GOD/\m/ who did it? no diplomacy (something that many on that side whined and !@#$%*ed to Polaris about doing to \m/), and just straight up surprise attack (aka similar to a preemptive strike). wow. just wow. how about we stop with the stupid hypocrisy and realize that it is a viable tactic. now, was it stupid? most assuredly it was. given the situation of this war, TOP/co missed one sizable key factor in their decision making process- the significance of the peace offer on the table between \m/ and Polaris. had that peace offer not been on the table- we would most likely be seeing a different war and a different less Hegemonic outcome.

[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 [b]history of the game.[/b]

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]

you forget the history it seems. also, no just because you got attacked does not make your crippling terms suddenly okay. crippling terms are never okay and should always be draconian. this sudden twist to what is or is not draconian (either it is not draconian because it does not include viceroy or forced disbandment when prior to Karma, crippling terms were included [gee wonder why crippling terms got dropped from what is draconian terms...] or we are defensive thus crippling terms is okay). frankly, no just no. i don't give a flying $%&@ if you are fighting a defensive war. crippling terms are just plain pathetic and any alliance who demands them is essentially wanna-be Heg or Heg-lite.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Dochartaigh

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='03 March 2010 - 12:18 PM' timestamp='1267640490' post='2212808']you forget the history it seems. also, no just because you got attacked does not make your crippling terms suddenly okay. crippling terms are never okay and should always be draconian. this sudden twist to what is or is not draconian (either it is not draconian because it does not include viceroy or forced disbandment when prior to Karma, crippling terms were included [gee wonder why crippling terms got dropped from what is draconian terms...] or we are defensive thus crippling terms is okay). frankly, no just no. i don't give a flying $%&@ if you are fighting a defensive war. crippling terms are just plain pathetic and any alliance who demands them is essentially wanna-be Heg or Heg-lite.
[/quote]That was a horrible paragraph.

I'm not replying to something that has attached an interesting new meaning to the word "draconian" without explaining precisely what that meaning is.

But for the record, there's no "suddenly" about it. Terms are OK for a number of reasons in this instance, God only knows what "draconian" terms implies.

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='03 March 2010 - 12:56 PM' timestamp='1267639206' post='2212786']There is one alliance that deserves to be crushed and it doesn't reside in CnG.[/quote]

Don't be coy. Let it all out. You'll feel better, and probably reduce your chance of having an attack of apoplexy.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='03 March 2010 - 12:13 PM' timestamp='1267640241' post='2212801']
Oh, do tell.
[/quote]
It's Polar. Sadly, we can't give them the attention that they so rightfully deserve at the moment due to the other 21 alliances we're fighting. I'm sure we'll make up for lost time in the future.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Feanor Noldorin

[Tick1]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='03 March 2010 - 06:09 PM' timestamp='1267639958' post='2212796']
for one, you need to get on board with the party line about who is fighting for survival...

two- do you really think TOP would be stupid enough to pull this stunt twice? please. it failed horribly and now TOP knows just how many alliances are willing to stand up for CnG (or how many allies CnG can drag in as meatshields). so to even assume they will "preemptively attack" CnG again is quite ridiculous.

and if CnG does not have they money, they sure as hell have the allies and obviously the slots. thus, they can give less crippling terms to TOP/co and accept aid from their allies instead.
[/quote]

Please explain to me who is fighting for survival, since I clearly don't know what survival is.

I guess you missed the 'air quotes' or maybe you're incompetent. If you really believe C&G dragged any of these alliances in maybe you don't know what a treaty is. TOP & Friends dragged the alliances in by declaring an offensive war on C&G.

Do you know how much tech will be lost by using all of those aid slots up? I guess you don't know the value of tech compared to money. Also as people have clearly pointed out helping someone during a war is more helpful then rebuilding them after war. So please drop your arrogant train of thought.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='03 March 2010 - 06:09 PM' timestamp='1267639958' post='2212796']
actually, no TOP/IRON never had a friggin chance in hell. never. [b]unless \m/ would have been too stupid/egotistical to realize that sacrificing their pride some and accepting peace, would basically allow CnG/SF to destroy most of the ex-Heg alliances, including TOP/IRON[/b]. that is the only way that TOP/IRON stood a chance. peace was [i]always[/i] on the table for \m/ to accept. ALWAYS. so no, TOP/IRON never stood a chance since other than NSO and the ego of Fark, everyone peaced out quite quickly in that war, freeing up many of CnG's/SF's allies to fight. so yeah, TOP/IRON got rolled and stomped on by any definition you try to use/make up.
[/quote]

Well clearly TOP & Friends thought that \m/ wasn't going to accept peace. Which is why they took advantage of the opportunity to attack C&G while NpO was pre-occupied. Which therefor meant that TOP & Friends thought they where going to roll C&G which should show you their true intentions.

[Tick1]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='03 March 2010 - 06:17 PM' timestamp='1267640476' post='2212806']
Ummm... what?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/betrayal

What on earth does the word "betrayal" have to do with written agreements?
[/quote]

Okay, you caught me! 'Written Agreement' is the wrong word usage. Anyhow going off of your own definition they didn't betray anyone since they don't hold a treaty with TOP.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Tick1' date='03 March 2010 - 01:39 PM' timestamp='1267641793' post='2212829']
Okay, you caught me! 'Written Agreement' is the wrong word usage. Anyhow going off of your own definition they didn't betray anyone since they don't hold a treaty with TOP.
[/quote]
Where does the word treaty factor into the word betrayal?

[neneko]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='03 March 2010 - 06:48 PM' timestamp='1267638710' post='2212777']
That's as paranoid as TOP's and IRON's reasons for attacking you in the first place – and just as absurd. TOP are perhaps likely to attack you in the context of a global war where their interests clearly lie with the victory of one coalition and yours with the victory of the other, though even that is unlikely considering the immediate 'What the hell' reaction from inside TOP when they found out about doing that this time.
[/quote]
This is beautiful. You start with stating that they attacked us because of paranoia and end with that it was all about polar.

These alliances used a bigger conflict to launch a very opportunistic attack on CnG. Is it paranoia when we think they'll take the next opportunity they think they have? Not really. Actually it'd be pretty dumb not to assume they'd do the same thing again if they got the chance.

[Tick1]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='03 March 2010 - 06:55 PM' timestamp='1267642767' post='2212848']
Where does the word treaty factor into the word betrayal?
[/quote]

Treaty factors in with their allegiance, since they are aligned to MK & GR I don't see how you can state that they have betrayed anyone. They have held their word to these two alliances. To state that they've betrayed TOP & Friends is to state that they were aligned to them in some way or had some sort of obligation to them. (Through a treaty)

Edit: Are you stating that betrayal is going against trust? Or rather something that you were supposed to do and didn't do. There shouldn't be any trust between two alliances that aren't allied. You can't believe someone without trust now can you? Therefor I'm insert treaty into the definition for the sake of an argument while staying in character. (Possible OOC)

Edited March 3, 2010 by Tick1

[wolverines1]

[quote name='Tick1' date='03 March 2010 - 12:58 PM' timestamp='1267639348' post='2212790']
The odds when TOP & Friends entered the war was at about 3:1 in their favor. Which means they had the upper hand.[/quote]

This seems odd since the CN Wiki entry I found shows that the total nation strength of TOP and its allies was always lower than C&G. Perhaps your numbers are wrong?

Betrayal can take many forms. If NpO gave its word to TOP that it would set aside the treaties it had with MK and other C&G members and participate in some activity, even if that activity consisted of doing nothing while TOP acted, then NpO broke its word. If someone wants to call it betrayal, then that is their right.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[quote]To state that they've betrayed TOP & Friends is to state that they were aligned to them in some way or had some sort of obligation to them. (Through a treaty)[/quote]
I'd say being part of the same coalition is being "aligned to them in some way". I'd say "giving your word" is enough to justify the word "betrayal".

But then again, we're arguing for nothing. This is Planet Bob, hypocrisy is probably the only constant thing. Let's just keep this war going until we're all too small to be a threat to anyone.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[Tick1]

[quote name='wolverines1' date='03 March 2010 - 07:14 PM' timestamp='1267643877' post='2212855']
This seems odd since the CN Wiki entry I found shows that the total nation strength of TOP and its allies was always lower than C&G. Perhaps your numbers are wrong?

Betrayal can take many forms. If NpO gave its word to TOP that it would set aside the treaties it had with MK and other C&G members and participate in some activity, even if that activity consisted of doing nothing while TOP acted, then NpO broke its word. If someone wants to call it betrayal, then that is their right.
[/quote]

That's quite odd now isn't it. I guess you missed the fact the it doesn't have the statistics for January 28th now does it..... Maybe I'm wrong, but I think I may be on to something .
Hence why I'm discussing the term of getting 'rolled' and not 'having a plan backfire in your face.'

Edit:For your information, Nation Strength doesn't include your amount of WRCs now does it..... please ponder that, then compare TOP & Friends WRC count to C&Gs.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Tick1

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='03 March 2010 - 12:30 PM' timestamp='1267641226' post='2212820']
It's Polar. Sadly, we can't give them the attention that they so rightfully deserve at the moment due to the other 21 alliances we're fighting. I'm sure we'll make up for lost time in the future.
[/quote]They'll be back in a year and a half. Even your fairly harsh terms from last time didn't end 'em. Though I wish you the best in that endeavour.