Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='03 March 2010 - 02:21 PM' timestamp='1267644318' post='2212859']
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.
[/quote]
Our fairly harsh terms? You might want to see who that "your" refers to, since most of them are now on your side. Also, if Polar's terms of 100k tech (including 17.5k being paid in full) are harsh, how would the terms offered by C&G to TOP should be qualified? Draconian? Extra harsh?

[der_ko]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' date='03 March 2010 - 08:28 PM' timestamp='1267644744' post='2212865']
Our fairly harsh terms? You might want to see who that "your" refers to, since most of them are now on your side. Also, if Polar's terms of 100k tech (including 17.5k being paid in full) are harsh, how would the terms offered by C&G to TOP should be qualified? Draconian? Extra harsh?
[/quote]
How much tech did NpO have at the time of their surrender?

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' date='03 March 2010 - 01:28 PM' timestamp='1267644744' post='2212865']
Our fairly harsh terms? You might want to see who that "your" refers to, since most of them are now on your side. Also, if Polar's terms of 100k tech (including 17.5k being paid in full) are harsh, how would the terms offered by C&G to TOP should be qualified? Draconian? Extra harsh?
[/quote]Comparing Polar '08 to TOP '10 is stupid, don't do it.

Also feel free to disregard the other terms because only reps matter as we all know.

[arentak]

[quote name='Tick1' date='03 March 2010 - 12:35 PM' timestamp='1267641563' post='2212824']
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.
[/quote]

This is such BS. NpO wasn't "Pre-occupied". They endorsed and supported the TOP/IRON attack on CnG, or did you miss Grub's big announcement? You literally make stuff up and repeat it again and again hoping someone believes you. Its not true. NpO wanted TOP/IRON on their side against SuperComplaints. That they later changed their mind/side doesn't change the facts.

EDIT: Was TOP stupid to trust an alliance they had spearheaded an attack against before? I don't know, I thought we had very good Polar relations. I was surprised. And also, to re-iterate, most of the alliance who "rolled Polar in 2008" are on CnG's side now.

Edited March 3, 2010 by arentak

[raasaa]

[quote name='wolverines1' date='03 March 2010 - 02:14 PM' timestamp='1267643877' post='2212855']
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]
I am assuming NpO gave its word based on the situation that IRON and TOP would FIGHT on polar's side of the war, not preemptively attack her allies. If IRON and TOP had entered via NSO and were countered by CnG, i am quite sure NpO would have kept her word.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[quote name='raasaa' date='03 March 2010 - 03:16 PM' timestamp='1267647603' post='2212898']
I am assuming NpO gave its word based on the situation that IRON and TOP would FIGHT on polar's side of the war, not preemptively attack her allies. If IRON and TOP had entered via NSO and were countered by CnG, i am quite sure NpO would have kept her word.
[/quote]
That has been debunked times and times again. NpO gave their word knowing TOP-IRON were going to preemptively attack C&G. Read Grub's announcements.

As for der_ko, I can't find Polaris levels of technology back when they accepted their surrender terms. By memory, I'd place them at anywhere between 200k and 350k but I could be wrong.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' date='03 March 2010 - 03:19 PM' timestamp='1267647764' post='2212900']
As for der_ko, I can't find Polaris levels of technology back when they accepted their surrender terms. By memory, I'd place them at anywhere between 200k and 350k but I could be wrong.
[/quote]
And who attacked who there?

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='03 March 2010 - 12:21 PM' timestamp='1267640716' post='2212811']
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.
[/quote]

actually there is. when MK and co got crippling terms, it was "draconian", now in two wars MK and co have given crippling terms (one accepted, the other rejected) and now ya'll saying it is not "draconian" but perfectly reasonable. so no, i am not providing any new meaning to draconian, i am relating the fact that ya'll keep changing the meaning to ensure your side can state that you have never given "draconian" terms.

also, i never stated that terms weren't okay, just not the crippling terms you guys want.

[quote name='Tick1' date='03 March 2010 - 12:35 PM' timestamp='1267641563' post='2212824']
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.



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.
[/quote]

survival is simple. it means not being decimated. which is what is happening to TOP/co. they are being decimated in this war and add to that the crippling terms ya'll want to impose and TOP/co are fighting for survival. ya'lls paranoid delusions about what the future will hold is just that- paranoid delusions. these delusions are more likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy as you essentially drive hatred towards CnG from the opposition because of the crippling terms.

as for who got dragged in, umm.... Polaris? while fighting on another front and when CnG had already amassed a decisive NS advantage over TOP, MK dragged Polaris into the war to open another front. as for TOP/co- i ain't denying that they didn't drag their allies into this. just stating that CnG has done the same. as for incompetence- lawlz. just plain lawlz.

do you know how much tech i have lost fighting for the delusions of my allies in CnG? i bet they don't give a $%&@ so long as they feel secured. if they did, they would be arguing to end this war sooner by lowering the terms through negotation, instead of continuing the war. i love war and don't mind losing infra/tech or any of that. i have lost more in other wars fighting for friends and allies. given the hysteria that has permeated CnG i am becoming less and less willing to continue to allow my nation to be destroyed so that they can have whatever pathetic edge/power play they are trying to do. i am in this war for friends/allies of IAA but mostly for IAA herself. this war is making me hate CnG more and more.

i am the arrogant one? please. i present facts so how is that arrogant? oh wait, it is basically just like your incompetence comment. you have very little actual substance to your argument and thus resort to ad hominems in an attempt to make it look like i am the one without an argument. good try but ain't working.

[quote name='neneko' date='03 March 2010 - 01:05 PM' timestamp='1267643366' post='2212852']
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.
[/quote]

while i agree with you about this war, you assume that TOP/co would be stupid enough to attempt this in the future. considering most of the alliances are far smaller than ya'll. not to mention, ya'lls side has more alliances involved in it and that leads me to think that they won't be stupid enough, nor will they really ever get a chance like this again. between CnG and SF, ya'll have a large amount of alliances ready to enter any war ya'll get in next. so again, to assume they would even get the chance is ridiculous.

[neneko]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='03 March 2010 - 10:08 PM' timestamp='1267650695' post='2212935']
while i agree with you about this war, you assume that TOP/co would be stupid enough to attempt this in the future. considering most of the alliances are far smaller than ya'll. not to mention, ya'lls side has more alliances involved in it and that leads me to think that they won't be stupid enough, nor will they really ever get a chance like this again. between CnG and SF, ya'll have a large amount of alliances ready to enter any war ya'll get in next. so again, to assume they would even get the chance is ridiculous.
[/quote]
We're not that big. CnG is by no means a huge bloc. As we have seen alot of times before the political landscape can change fairly quick and as we have seen very clearly in this war where in the treaty web a war start will affect the sides greatly. I'm not saying they're going to try the exact same thing again. Naturally that'd have the same outcome but I don't doubt that given the chance they'd go for another shot at cng.

You can call this paranoia if you want but we've gotten attacked by them because they wanted to eliminate us as a threat now. Before things turned south for TOP and the rest we were told both on the forums and on irc exactly why they decided to hit us. While they naturally try to cover this up now (I would too) it doesn't change the fact that they took a chance they thought they had to bloody us and that makes them likely to do it again in my eyes.

[Tick1]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='03 March 2010 - 09:08 PM' timestamp='1267650695' post='2212935']
survival is simple. it means not being decimated. which is what is happening to TOP/co. they are being decimated in this war and add to that the crippling terms ya'll want to impose and TOP/co are fighting for survival. ya'lls paranoid delusions about what the future will hold is just that- paranoid delusions. these delusions are more likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy as you essentially drive hatred towards CnG from the opposition because of the crippling terms.

as for who got dragged in, umm.... Polaris? while fighting on another front and when CnG had already amassed a decisive NS advantage over TOP, MK dragged Polaris into the war to open another front. as for TOP/co- i ain't denying that they didn't drag their allies into this. just stating that CnG has done the same. as for incompetence- lawlz. just plain lawlz.

do you know how much tech i have lost fighting for the delusions of my allies in CnG? i bet they don't give a $%&@ so long as they feel secured. if they did, they would be arguing to end this war sooner by lowering the terms through negotation, instead of continuing the war. i love war and don't mind losing infra/tech or any of that. i have lost more in other wars fighting for friends and allies. given the hysteria that has permeated CnG i am becoming less and less willing to continue to allow my nation to be destroyed so that they can have whatever pathetic edge/power play they are trying to do. i am in this war for friends/allies of IAA but mostly for IAA herself. this war is making me hate CnG more and more.

i am the arrogant one? please. i present facts so how is that arrogant? oh wait, it is basically just like your incompetence comment. you have very little actual substance to your argument and thus resort to ad hominems in an attempt to make it look like i am the one without an argument. good try but ain't working.
[/quote]

TOP, fighting for survival? That's quite an amusing concept considering they have nations with two billion dollar warchests. Considering the fact that TOP can output a total of 176550 tech in one aid rotation. Now I understand there is some error in my math considering not every nation within TOP will be sending out tech and money to payback reparations. However if every nation in their alliance was to use half of their aid slots and pay of reparations they'd be paying 88275 each aid set. Now those are some large numbers. You think that any amount of reparations is going to be crippling them? Since those are just TOP's numbers I'll let you add in IRON's and the rest of the gangs.

Edit: (Three million dollars and fifty tech) is one rotation. Each aid slot is worth one-hundred and fifty technology.

Polaris never got dragged into this war! They caused the war by attempting to purge the world of raiders that attacked established alliances. Look how well that has gone over. To say that this war isn't their fault is to say that I didn't call it before they declared war on (\m/). The chain of events where caused by NpO whether anyone wants to admit it or not. The only reason you claim MK dragged them into the war is because MK asked NpO to stick to their treaty.

[quote]
[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=78523&view=findpost&p=2115862"]Although you believe your acts of justice aren't immoral at all. You believe reigning your destruction upon alliances because they raid is the call for threatening someone. If the AlimightyGrub actually finds this to be disturbing and threatening he'd have already declared upon the alliances. His reckless attitude will eventually be the cause for another global war which is far worse than any tech raid. While it will be in the cause of justice it will also lead to the destruction of more infrastructure than any raiders have ever done.[/url]
[/quote]

Have you ever thought to pull out if you are having trouble dealing with the war? That's always an option. Its not like you are required to stay in the war. Although you may have a treaty obligation you can always back out. So should I care how much tech you've lost? You've always had the option to get out of this war, you choose to stay in it. If IAA thinks it is necessary to stay in the war that is their choice not yours. Maybe you should be discussing with your government on IAA's reasoning for staying in the war and not me.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Tick1

[Bob Janova]

[quote]This is beautiful. You start with stating that they attacked us because of paranoia and end with that it was all about polar.[/quote]
You are correct, I meant to say: this is as paranoid as TOP/IRON's secondary reason for attacking you was, which you have elevated to the primary/only reason for PR purposes.

[quote]I am assuming NpO gave its word based on the situation that IRON and TOP would FIGHT on polar's side of the war, not preemptively attack her allies[/quote]
You'd know that assumption wasn't correct if you read these boards more Grub gave the pre-emptive attack the all clear and said that he wouldn't be activating the MK treaty. And yes Tick, I consider going against your directly provided word to a coalition partner to fight against them to be a betrayal. Also, I'd like to see those figures for TOP/IRON's side ever having a 3:1 advantage; the sides were at best about even, and then more alliances started to pile in against them and those on their side were pushed into peace.

[quote]Comparing Polar '08 to TOP '10 is stupid, don't do it.[/quote]
Stupid because it gives the lie to Karma being the end of draconian reps? And yes, there were other terms – similar to those imposed on NPO by your bloc, so you don't have a leg to stand on there either. (Not to mention that the draft TOP/IRON terms have a no outside aid clause, which is designed to be as damaging as the 1000+-tech term to Polar.)

Edit:
[quote]As we have seen alot of times before the political landscape can change fairly quick[/quote]
Yeah, it tends to shift against those who keep their opponents down and impose harsh terms

Edited March 3, 2010 by Bob Janova

[neneko]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='03 March 2010 - 10:42 PM' timestamp='1267652786' post='2212966']
You are correct, I meant to say: this is as paranoid as TOP/IRON's secondary reason for attacking you was, which you have elevated to the primary/only reason for PR purposes.
[/quote]
Nah I just like to point it out when you guys try to hide it. It amuses me. It's sort of like playing hide and seek with red elephant.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='03 March 2010 - 10:42 PM' timestamp='1267652786' post='2212966']
Stupid because it gives the lie to Karma being the end of draconian reps? And yes, there were other terms – similar to those imposed on NPO by your bloc, so you don't have a leg to stand on there either. (Not to mention that the draft TOP/IRON terms have a no outside aid clause, which is designed to be as damaging as the 1000+-tech term to Polar.)
[/quote]
If we really just wanted to hurt them as much as possible I don't think the part that allow half of the reps to be bought from outside sources would be there. That part is going to be tremendously helpful for TOP.

Nobody answered flak I think. Who was it that started that war anyway?


edit:
[quote]
Yeah, it tends to shift against those who keep their opponents down and impose harsh terms [/quote]
I realize you added this because you thought it was witty and didn't think two seconds about it but no most of the time we spent here on bob that has not been the case.

Edited March 3, 2010 by neneko

[greatmagnus]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='03 March 2010 - 03:08 PM' timestamp='1267650695' post='2212935']
actually there is. when MK and co got crippling terms, it was "draconian", now in two wars MK and co have given crippling terms (one accepted, the other rejected) and now ya'll saying it is not "draconian" but perfectly reasonable. so no, i am not providing any new meaning to draconian, i am relating the fact that ya'll keep changing the meaning to ensure your side can state that you have never given "draconian" terms.
[/quote]

MK didn't really get much in the way of reps from karma, so please refrain from "MK and Co." Other then that cheers.

[Tulafaras]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='03 March 2010 - 10:42 PM' timestamp='1267652786' post='2212966']
You are correct, I meant to say: this is as paranoid as TOP/IRON's secondary reason for attacking you was, which you have elevated to the primary/only reason for PR purposes.


You'd know that assumption wasn't correct if you read these boards more Grub gave the pre-emptive attack the all clear and said that he wouldn't be activating the MK treaty. And yes Tick, I consider going against your directly provided word to a coalition partner to fight against them to be a betrayal. Also, I'd like to see those figures for TOP/IRON's side ever having a 3:1 advantage; the sides were at best about even, and then more alliances started to pile in against them and those on their side were pushed into peace.


Stupid because it gives the lie to Karma being the end of draconian reps? And yes, there were other terms – similar to those imposed on NPO by your bloc, so you don't have a leg to stand on there either. (Not to mention that the draft TOP/IRON terms have a no outside aid clause, which is designed to be as damaging as the 1000+-tech term to Polar.)

Edit:

Yeah, it tends to shift against those who keep their opponents down and impose harsh terms
[/quote]
Seriously Bob are you trying to prove that you are the most biased poster on this board? You are comparing apples to oranges and say there is no difference except prove a lie. Frankly you still don't understand what draconian means. I can think of at least 3 terms which have been used in the past which definitly fit the definition of the word, and almost none of them have anything to do with money or tech.

Want an example? Let's include Factories into the list of improvements you must rip down to surrender. Or another one? Delete all manhatten projects. Or how about accept person XY as viceroy?

Frankly the numbers TOP allegedly has been offered (i wasn't there obviously since my alliance has nothing to do with that front) are pure money. Will they hurt? Most likely, but they are easily paid off within a short period of time if TOP truly has the warchests they have always claimed they have.
It might sting their pride that they have to give out some tech, but in bare numbers they will recoup whatever they have to pay within 6 months. Their nations will be back at 6k+ infra and they still have their organization.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Tulafaras' date='03 March 2010 - 10:14 PM' timestamp='1267654650' post='2212993']
Want an example? Let's include Factories into the list of improvements you must rip down to surrender. Or another one? [b]Delete all manhatten projects.[/b] Or how about accept person XY as viceroy?
[/quote]

That one is an award winner.

[Bob Janova]

Tulafaras, paraphrased: [i]"Hey they aren't giving terms that are as bad as the worst excesses of the Hegemony, so they [b]can't[/b] be draconian!"[/i]



No, the draft terms are not the worst in history. That doesn't make them good.

[quote]If we really just wanted to hurt them as much as possible I don't think the part that allow half of the reps to be bought from outside sources would be there[/quote]
When the amount you are demanding is high enough it doesn't matter what the conditions are, except for making specious arguments like this one. If you want to hurt them as much as possible you will only offer terms after an extended period of war, and offer only terms that you know aren't acceptable. Oh wait, that's exactly what you have done!

[quote]Nobody answered flak I think. Who was it that started that war anyway?[/quote]
Polar started the war. TOP/IRON started the C&G front. What's your point? Nobody has ever claimed otherwise (apart from the 'new war' people who ignore everything in TOP's DoW apart from a cherry-picked sentence).

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='neneko' date='03 March 2010 - 03:33 PM' timestamp='1267652245' post='2212955']
We're not that big. CnG is by no means a huge bloc. As we have seen alot of times before the political landscape can change fairly quick and as we have seen very clearly in this war where in the treaty web a war start will affect the sides greatly. I'm not saying they're going to try the exact same thing again. Naturally that'd have the same outcome but I don't doubt that given the chance they'd go for another shot at cng.

You can call this paranoia if you want but we've gotten attacked by them because they wanted to eliminate us as a threat now. Before things turned south for TOP and the rest we were told both on the forums and on irc exactly why they decided to hit us. While they naturally try to cover this up now (I would too) it doesn't change the fact that they took a chance they thought they had to bloody us and that makes them likely to do it again in my eyes.
[/quote]

so, instead of alleviating the threat through both force and diplomacy, you attempt to essentially negate it through force and crippling terms? i know when NPO tried that with MK and others, it did not work out that well for them at all. yet ya'll are trying to do essentially the same thing. i seriously wonder how well this will work out for ya'll?

[quote name='Tick1' date='03 March 2010 - 03:36 PM' timestamp='1267652406' post='2212958']
TOP, fighting for survival? That's quite an amusing concept considering they have nations with two billion dollar warchests. Considering the fact that TOP can output a total of 176550 tech in one aid rotation. Now I understand there is some error in my math considering not every nation within TOP will be sending out tech and money to payback reparations. However if every nation in their alliance was to use half of their aid slots and pay of reparations they'd be paying 88275 each aid set. Now those are some large numbers. You think that any amount of reparations is going to be crippling them? Since those are just TOP's numbers I'll let you add in IRON's and the rest of the gangs.[/quote]

yes because of the fact that TOP can output a lot of tech and cash totally makes the terms not crippling in the least... if this were so, then how would these terms not alleviate the threat TOP could be in the future? fact is, these terms are crippling and ya'll attempting to justify them or state they are [i]not[/i] crippling is quite amusing given the facts on hand.

so out of CnG and TOP, it is quite easy to see who is fighting a war of survival. CnG already know they are winning, know that they have allies who can help them rebuild, know that they have allies currently helping them in this war (thus allowing CnG to do some mid-war rebuilding), and so on and so forth. so are you seriously trying to state that TOP is not fighting a war of survival? even with 2 billion dollar WCs (which several in CnG are stating that only a small portion of TOP actually have) they are still fighting a war of survival.


[quote]Polaris never got dragged into this war! They caused the war by attempting to purge the world of raiders that attacked established alliances. Look how well that has gone over. To say that this war isn't their fault is to say that I didn't call it before they declared war on (\m/). The chain of events where caused by NpO whether anyone wants to admit it or not. The only reason you claim MK dragged them into the war is because MK asked NpO to stick to their treaty.[/quote]

wait, i thought CnG was pushing this as a separate war unrelated to the Polar-\m/ war? so i would say it was TOP/IRON who started it since that was the party line when this war first began. thus, i would say that Polaris did in fact get dragged in since CnG has been proclaiming this as a separate war. it is TOP/IRON who have been pushing the "this war is the same as the Polar-\m/ war". so going by your side's propaganda, Polaris did get dragged in by MK. lrnurpropaganda mate.



[quote]Have you ever thought to pull out if you are having trouble dealing with the war? That's always an option. Its not like you are required to stay in the war. Although you may have a treaty obligation you can always back out. So should I care how much tech you've lost? You've always had the option to get out of this war, you choose to stay in it. If IAA thinks it is necessary to stay in the war that is their choice not yours. Maybe you should be discussing with your government on IAA's reasoning for staying in the war and not me.
[/quote]

IAA is IAA. i am just a member. my gov is staying in for allies of IAA. i am staying in for IAA. i do not know how hard of a concept that is. as for should you care how much tech i have lost? no, not really. but then why should i care how much you have lost? the answer is, i shouldn't one bit. i don't care what CnG has lost in this war. not a tiny little bit. so, if you are unwilling to care about my tech loss, then stop bringing up yours or CnG's, cuz according to you, no one should care about the losses of any other alliance.

like i said before, i know my gov's reasoning for staying in and find it honorable. staying in for friends and allies is an honorable thing just as going into a war for friends and allies is honorable. i know this is starting to become an alien concept to many in CnG/SF and all them considering they feel that alliances like TOOL and others should not have joined this war despite their friends and allies were in it. but that is a whole other issue.

[quote name='greatmagnus' date='03 March 2010 - 03:56 PM' timestamp='1267653614' post='2212978']
MK didn't really get much in the way of reps from karma, so please refrain from "MK and Co." Other then that cheers.
[/quote]

so there is also no longer "guilt by association"?

[quote name='Tulafaras' date='03 March 2010 - 04:14 PM' timestamp='1267654650' post='2212993']
Seriously Bob are you trying to prove that you are the most biased poster on this board? You are comparing apples to oranges and say there is no difference except prove a lie. Frankly you still don't understand what draconian means. I can think of at least 3 terms which have been used in the past which definitly fit the definition of the word, and almost none of them have anything to do with money or tech.

Want an example? Let's include Factories into the list of improvements you must rip down to surrender. Or another one? Delete all manhatten projects. Or how about accept person XY as viceroy?

Frankly the numbers TOP allegedly has been offered (i wasn't there obviously since my alliance has nothing to do with that front) are pure money. Will they hurt? Most likely, but they are easily paid off within a short period of time if TOP truly has the warchests they have always claimed they have.
It might sting their pride that they have to give out some tech, but in bare numbers they will recoup whatever they have to pay within 6 months. Their nations will be back at 6k+ infra and they still have their organization.
[/quote]

your argument would work better if CnG had not !@#$%*ed about tech/money terms being draconian when NPO/Heg handed them down to CnG at the end of WoTC.

as for the terms being pure money, that is mistaken since there was like 300k-350k or some odd tech being demanded from TOP.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='03 March 2010 - 01:09 PM' timestamp='1267639958' post='2212796']


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]

Doch old friend...how many offensive wars has C&G started? NONE. So what track record do you speak of? Because I feel I am about to accuse you of speaking out your $@!.

[Bob Janova]

Athens attacked Ni, and Athens with SF backup attacked TPF, both in the last 6 months.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Lusitan' date='03 March 2010 - 05:38 PM' timestamp='1267656099' post='2213016']
That one is an award winner.
[/quote]
The sad thing is that it has actually been in terms.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='03 March 2010 - 06:31 PM' timestamp='1267659278' post='2213077']
Athens attacked Ni, and Athens with SF backup attacked TPF, both in the last 6 months.
[/quote]

OH THE HORROR. I am glad that TOP hasn't aggressively attacked any........ oh wait.

EDIT: Note you said Athens. Athens =/= C&G. Try again Bob. Your double standards amuse me.

EDIT2: In the case of Ni! Reps were paid. In regards to TPF, well, infiltrating an alliance with the intent to destroy it is now acceptable in your book too.

Edited March 3, 2010 by AirMe

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='03 March 2010 - 03:08 PM' timestamp='1267650695' post='2212935']
actually there is. when MK and co got crippling terms, it was "draconian", now in two wars MK and co have given crippling terms (one accepted, the other rejected) and now ya'll saying it is not "draconian" but perfectly reasonable. so no, i am not providing any new meaning to draconian, i am relating the fact that ya'll keep changing the meaning to ensure your side can state that you have never given "draconian" terms.

also, i never stated that terms weren't okay, just not the crippling terms you guys want.[/quote]Giving up Seerow and deleting wonders was draconian, 85k tech was just A Lot. For a defensive war.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Rocky Horror

[flak attack]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='03 March 2010 - 06:59 PM' timestamp='1267660997' post='2213095']
Giving up Seerow and deleting wonders was draconian, 85k tech was just A Lot. For a defensive war.
[/quote]
Let's not forget the ban on nuclear first striking, especially since that was MK's major line of defense.

Edited March 4, 2010 by flak attack

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='flak attack' date='03 March 2010 - 06:10 PM' timestamp='1267661664' post='2213110']
Let's not forget the ban on nuclear first striking, especially since that was MK's major line of defense.
[/quote]I think that was legitimate during the bounds NPO had imposed on the game. We broke those barriers by being better at the game, and since that was achievable I have few complaints.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='flak attack' date='03 March 2010 - 11:37 PM' timestamp='1267659636' post='2213080']
The sad thing is that it has actually been in terms.
[/quote]

Oh, I know. That's why I said it was an award winner.. on previous editions