Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[Bob Janova]

AirMe, you stated that C&G hadn't started an offensive war. Athens is a C&G alliance and has started two offensive wars in a few months. Since C&G is an MADP, the other members would have been fully informed and backed them up should full combat operations have been necessary, so you're just trying to play semantics saying that a C&G signatory starting a war is somehow not the bloc being aggressive. People claim 'the Hegemony' was aggressive and started wars even though in almost every one some of the alliances did not take part. It's a good ploy, though, when someone invalidates your point to pretend you were saying something else.

And yes, reps were paid to Ni – as reps will almost certainly be paid in this case. We can play the accusation game all night re TPF: in your book, apparently, declaring a war with no diplomacy over six month old issues is okay.

In the MK [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=32875&st=20]peace terms thread[/url], before it was locked, there are three people complaining about the size of the reparations and zero complaining about the other terms, so I think there's some convenient rewriting of history going on in this thread where people are saying that the reps weren't draconian after all, now you want to extort similar proportions from other people. Yes, the other terms made it worse, though you're happy to impose terms like that as well (see the NPO terms), but the primary complaint back then was the size of the reps (possibly along with the nuclear first strike term).

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='03 March 2010 - 08:54 PM' timestamp='1267667893' post='2213187']
AirMe, you stated that C&G hadn't started an offensive war. Athens is a C&G alliance and has started two offensive wars in a few months. Since C&G is an MADP, the other members would have been fully informed and backed them up should full combat operations have been necessary, so you're just trying to play semantics saying that a C&G signatory starting a war is somehow not the bloc being aggressive. People claim 'the Hegemony' was aggressive and started wars even though in almost every one some of the alliances did not take part. It's a good ploy, though, when someone invalidates your point to pretend you were saying something else.

And yes, reps were paid to Ni – as reps will almost certainly be paid in this case. We can play the accusation game all night re TPF: in your book, apparently, declaring a war with no diplomacy over six month old issues is okay.

In the MK [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=32875&st=20]peace terms thread[/url], before it was locked, there are three people complaining about the size of the reparations and zero complaining about the other terms, so I think there's some convenient rewriting of history going on in this thread where people are saying that the reps weren't draconian after all, now you want to extort similar proportions from other people. Yes, the other terms made it worse, though you're happy to impose terms like that as well (see the NPO terms), but the primary complaint back then was the size of the reps (possibly along with the nuclear first strike term).
[/quote]

The TPF War is admittedly an aggressive war, that can't be denied. Where do you get the second one? I'm not sure including a mass tech raid in a list of offensive wars is entirely honest. Although there were always alliances that stayed out of the various great curbstomps, the usual suspects (NPO, IRON, TPF, TORN, GGA, Valhalla, etc) pretty much always showed up and fully supported the aggression.

That topic was open for 9 minutes, to use the responses there as any kind of indicator is ridiculous. Not to mention that MK members actually know how to surrender properly, so none of them complained at all in that thread. In fact the only people I see who raise any criticisms at all are Jonathan Brookbank and Sargun.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='04 March 2010 - 02:04 AM' timestamp='1267668477' post='2213212']
That topic was open for 9 minutes, [b]to use the responses there as any kind of indicator is ridiculous[/b]. [b]Not to mention that MK members actually know how to surrender properly, so none of them complained at all in that thread[/b]. In fact the only people I see who raise any criticisms at all are Jonathan Brookbank and Sargun.
[/quote]

You certainly can see the contradiction in both these statements?

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Lusitan' date='03 March 2010 - 09:17 PM' timestamp='1267669282' post='2213227']
You certainly can see the contradiction in both these statements?
[/quote]

Not really.

The topic was open for a very short time, so only a handful of MK members actually posted in it. Of those that did, all knew how to behave themselves and so there was no complaining.

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='03 March 2010 - 09:04 PM' timestamp='1267668477' post='2213212']
...Not to mention that MK members actually know how to surrender properly...
[/quote]
What the hell?

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='03 March 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1267670415' post='2213246']
What the hell?
[/quote]

Sorry, it's the truth. You guys are good at following surrender terms.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Lord Brendan

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='04 March 2010 - 02:25 AM' timestamp='1267669736' post='2213237']
Not really.

The topic was open for a very short time, so only a handful of MK members actually posted in it. Of those that did, all knew how to behave themselves and so there was no complaining.
[/quote]

[i]Not to mention that MK members actually know how to surrender properly, so none of them complained at all in that thread.[/i]

[i]That topic was open for 9 minutes, to use the responses there as any kind of indicator is ridiculous.[/i]

It might not be what you meant, but it is a bloody contradiction to infere that MK knows how to surrender properly because of what you saw in that thread while at the same time saying that using the responses as any kind of indicator is ridiculous

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='AirMe' date='03 March 2010 - 05:28 PM' timestamp='1267659094' post='2213073']
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 $@!.
[/quote]

CnG hasn't, but certain alliances within CnG have. that you cannot deny (i speak of the ones that Bob spoke of). while Athens/FoB or just Athens does not equal all of CnG, given that CnG is a MADP, it is quite simple to see that if those wars for whatever reason went larger, all of CnG would be dragged in on the Aggressive clause, essentially causing them commit an offensive war. I seriously doubt that CnG would leave behind any CnG member just because said member started an offensive war.

so, while i say Ya'll, i tend to mean the alliances involved not just the blocs. i am sometimes just to lazy to type out every example.

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='03 March 2010 - 05:59 PM' timestamp='1267660997' post='2213095']
Giving up Seerow and deleting wonders was draconian, 85k tech was just A Lot. For a defensive war.
[/quote]
[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]

what is funny is since that time, i heard more about reps from CnG than about any other term. while some of those terms get thrown around it tends to be a general case that applies to several wars versus just specific terms that apply to a specific war and to specific alliances.

so you can throw all those other terms around now, but we all know that it was the reps that was brought up the most.

[AirMe]

I give up on you people. I'm going to go kick your mom in the shin because she looked at me funny. And then demand she thank me for it and ask her not hit me with her purse.

Edited March 4, 2010 by AirMe

[bigwoody]

[quote name='AirMe' date='03 March 2010 - 11:34 PM' timestamp='1267681073' post='2213443']
I give up on you people. I'm going to go kick your mom in the shin because she looked at me funny. And then demand she thank me for it and ask her not hit me with her purse.
[/quote]
"I made a statement framed as fact and was proven factually wrong, twice. I'm taking my toys and going home!"

Admit you were wrong. Its not even a matter of opinion.

[AirMe]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='04 March 2010 - 12:38 AM' timestamp='1267681313' post='2213449']
"I made a statement framed as fact and was proven factually wrong, twice. I'm taking my toys and going home!"

Admit you were wrong. Its not even a matter of opinion.
[/quote]

No, I was not wrong. C&G as a block has not declared an aggressive war on anyone. The alliance tech raid of Ni! doesn't count. And the TPF conflict was also only started by Athens, not C&G. But in that case, don't single out Athens. MK declared war on UBD for spying but didn't bring C&G with us. MK also declared war on WAPA but didn't bring C&G with them either but I guess that would still count as C&G declaring an aggressive war. Even though these are all examples of Individual alliances within the bloc exercising their autonomy.

So, I stand by my comments, C&G has never started an aggressive war.

EDIT: My point really is that in Bob's eyes it was ok for you and your allies to take a swipe at C&G because you saw them as a threat but it isn't ok for C&G to continue the war that you started because they now view you as a threat. If we apply the same values evenly instead of putting people and alliances up on a pedestal things become a lot clearer.

Edited March 4, 2010 by AirMe

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='AirMe' date='03 March 2010 - 11:43 PM' timestamp='1267681639' post='2213455']
No, I was not wrong. C&G as a block has not declared an aggressive war on anyone. The alliance tech raid of Ni! doesn't count. And the TPF conflict was also only started by Athens, not C&G. But in that case, don't single out Athens. MK declared war on UBD for spying but didn't bring C&G with us. MK also declared war on WAPA but didn't bring C&G with them either but I guess that would still count as C&G declaring an aggressive war. Even though these are all examples of Individual alliances within the bloc exercising their autonomy.

So, I stand by my comments, C&G has never started an aggressive war.

EDIT: My point really is that in Bob's eyes it was ok for you and your allies to take a swipe at C&G because you saw them as a threat but it isn't ok for C&G to continue the war that you started because they now view you as a threat. If we apply the same values evenly instead of putting people and alliances up on a pedestal things become a lot clearer.
[/quote]

i agree, CnG has never started an aggressive war but they do have a MADP which means it is far more likely than when a member starts an aggressive war, then it could very well bring in the rest of the bloc, especially if the aggressive war goes wrong.

as for applying the same values- ya'll see it as extremely wrong and not okay for TOP/co to have started the war, but see it as extremely right and most certainly okay for CnG to continue the war. frankly, it was idiotic of TOP/co to have started the war, and it is starting to become idiotic to continue this war and it is idiotic to demand crippling reps. how is that for apply the same values? basically CnG/TOP are both idiots.

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='AirMe' date='03 March 2010 - 11:43 PM' timestamp='1267681639' post='2213455']
No, I was not wrong. C&G as a block has not declared an aggressive war on anyone. The alliance tech raid of Ni! doesn't count. And the TPF conflict was also only started by Athens, not C&G. But in that case, don't single out Athens. MK declared war on UBD for spying but didn't bring C&G with us. MK also declared war on WAPA but didn't bring C&G with them either but I guess that would still count as C&G declaring an aggressive war. Even though these are all examples of Individual alliances within the bloc exercising their autonomy.

So, I stand by my comments, C&G has never started an aggressive war.

EDIT: My point really is that in Bob's eyes it was ok for you and your allies to take a swipe at C&G because you saw them as a threat but it isn't ok for C&G to continue the war that you started because they now view you as a threat. If we apply the same values evenly instead of putting people and alliances up on a pedestal things become a lot clearer.
[/quote]


Dang, This thread needs to die already.

Any how, I'd say the reason why CnG didn't declare an agressive war in these instances is they didn't need to. I don't think for a second that any member of CnG would have declined support to Athens, or MK in those instances if needed.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Tick1' date='03 March 2010 - 02:07 PM' timestamp='1267643489' post='2212854']
There shouldn't be any trust between two alliances that aren't allied.
[/quote]
Aha, this is your core belief.

I would prefer to be a trustworthy person, and not seek to lie, cheat and steal from every single person on Planet Bob I am not allied to. You on the other hand seem to think that's OK.

[Haflinger]

[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.
[/quote]
Your assumption is incorrect, and is contrary to public statements by Grub. Grub OKed the preemptive attack.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Tulafaras' date='03 March 2010 - 05:14 PM' timestamp='1267654650' post='2212993']
Delete all manhatten projects.
[/quote]
You do realize that the only way to enforce such a term would be to delete all nations with MPs, right?

[flak attack]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='04 March 2010 - 02:05 AM' timestamp='1267686567' post='2213515']
You do realize that the only way to enforce such a term would be to delete all nations with MPs, right?
[/quote]
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=33384

Also interesting to see is this post: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=33384&view=findpost&p=882861

[Letum]

[quote name='AirMe' date='04 March 2010 - 05:43 AM' timestamp='1267681639' post='2213455']
No, I was not wrong. C&G as a block has not declared an aggressive war on anyone. The alliance tech raid of Ni! doesn't count. And the TPF conflict was also only started by Athens, not C&G. But in that case, don't single out Athens. MK declared war on UBD for spying but didn't bring C&G with us. MK also declared war on WAPA but didn't bring C&G with them either but I guess that would still count as C&G declaring an aggressive war. Even though these are all examples of Individual alliances within the bloc exercising their autonomy.

So, I stand by my comments, C&G has never started an aggressive war.
[/quote]

You are trying to play semantics here. The nature of an MDAP block is always such that a single member taking aggressive action will end up being backed by all its members should the need arise. By the same token, TORN or TSO or TOOL are not taking aggressive action, they are merely following (via treaties) TOP, much like the rest of CnG would have followed Athens had the TPF war not ended with everyone backing off.

Similarly, the MK part of the WoTC ended up being brought on by treaties on both sides, yet people are extremely fond of citing it as an aggressive war. You portray it as individual alliances within a bloc exercising their autonomy, but by being in a block, their behaviour is actively enabled. The block itself may not have been activated in these cases, but that is not because of a lack of support, but rather a lack of anyone standing up to them. Would you seriously try to argue that, had TOP/IRON not settled for white peace 2 months ago, CnG would not have joined in?

This is how the perception of oppression arises in the world. When you are part of a dominant block, the alliances you have cease being solely about self-defence and start being about power. You may be in a very nice and pacifist alliance, yet if you are tied to someone who is Jingoist, your active tie enables them to partake in behaviours they would not otherwise be able to. Do you think, for example, that GGA would have done half the things to green that it did without the protection from consequence that its ties afforded it?

You can claim that it is individuals exercising their autonomy all you want, but CnG has written a carte blanche for said "autonomy", and that cannot be ignored.

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' date='04 March 2010 - 01:36 AM' timestamp='1267684784' post='2213495']
Dang, This thread needs to die already.

Any how, I'd say the reason why CnG didn't declare an agressive war in these instances is they didn't need to. I don't think for a second that any member of CnG would have declined support to Athens, or MK in those instances if needed.
[/quote]

I believe archon said as much durng the Knights of Ni incident. I seem to recall a thread which warned the outside world not to inject itself into the conflict. I further seem to recall that post stating that MK would defend Athens.

[PrideAssassin]

I believe Archon invoked the whole of CnG as well, but I could be mistaken. Even if he didn't, he did so by declaring MK's full support of the Athens action.

[Tulafaras]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='04 March 2010 - 08:05 AM' timestamp='1267686567' post='2213515']
You do realize that the only way to enforce such a term would be to delete all nations with MPs, right?
[/quote]
to be honest i never considered deleting a wonder so no i didn't check that. I remembered a fuss about wonder deletion and picked the first military wonder that came to my mind.

The ironic thing is that it was actually written into the GR terms a while ago so i guess other people made the same mistake

If it makes you happy i can go back and edit it to WRC but it doesn't really make a difference does it? The point i wanted to make remains pretty clear.

[uaciaut]

[quote name='Letum' date='04 March 2010 - 09:46 AM' timestamp='1267689003' post='2213544']
snip
[/quote]

And this is completely un-biased, right.

I gotta say i'm completely amused at the thought of implying a damn raid is an aggressive action of the evil power hungry C&G bloc, that's deffinitely one of the most hilarious things i've heard. You can try to argue about TPF war - and in all honesty it all gives me a headache - but like to admit it or not Athens did have a CB on the table when it was declared - whether you or anyone else finds it viable or not, and the whole thing could have been prevented if mhawk came out clean when he surrendered his alliance instead of playing the martyr. Not to mention that the war itself was a because Athens took a course of action in what they felt was a wrong towards the security of their alliance.

[PrideAssassin]

So... how big does an Alliance have to be before a "war" is a raid? Because while small, they weren't THAT small.
You seem to be writing the rules now, let's hear it.

[lebubu]

[quote name='PrideAssassin' date='04 March 2010 - 11:57 AM' timestamp='1267700457' post='2213592']
So... how big does an Alliance have to be before a "war" is a raid? Because while small, they weren't THAT small.
You seem to be writing the rules now, let's hear it.
[/quote]

There's no such thing as "how big". Anyone who claims otherwise is pulling numbers out of his $@!. Athens declared war on an unprotected/untied alliance with the goal of scoring some tech. A tech raid, no different than the ones you see daily on 5 man alliances. Some alliances have raiding limits because a) you risk making the raid unprofitable (at the very least) by hitting a large alliance and b) you might be hitting a viable community instead of a random group of nations.

The issue has been resolved, Athens paid reps and Ni was perfectly content with the resolution. Funnily enough, the only people still scandalized are the ones who are trying to use the raid to paint us as some sort of aggressive bloc, with a history of launching unprovoked attacks.

[uaciaut]

What i find hilarious isn't that, it's that they're trying to say the Athens raid was a C&G aggressive action/abuse of power like Athens was somehow using C&G's political revenue to declare on Ni, like Athens wouldn't have had the military capability of raiding Ni without our bloc.
It's like the level of stupidity keeps raising on a daily basis.