Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[PrideAssassin]

[quote name='uaciaut' date='04 March 2010 - 04:21 AM' timestamp='1267705525' post='2213610']
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.
[/quote]
Only MK felt the need to militarily back the raid. Athens wouldn't have been able to handle the repurcussions of their actions without the Bloc. No.

Funny, hmmm?

Edited March 4, 2010 by PrideAssassin

[Bob Janova]

Uac, that is entirely true. Without connections, Athens would have been rolled into the ground by Polar – and MK's declaration that they'd be backing Athens up against any consequences and telling Grub that he'd have to 'come through' MK makes it into a C&G supported war.

[quote]The issue has been resolved[/quote]
So had noCB, the GPA war, the GATO-1V war before Karma ... did that suddenly make Hegemony not aggressive at all, because 'the issues had been resolved'? The fact that Athens had to pay reps shows that it was an aggressive action and alliance supported.

As for a raid not being a war – if VE decided to raid MK en masse, are you seriously telling me you would not consider that an aggressive alliance war on our part? I simply don't believe that, although if it's true people should be raiding MK left right and centre. Some people call the GPA war a 'giant techraid' ... are you saying that would make it ok? If TOP had just done two ground attacks and 'PM for peace', would you be happy? (The answer to this one is clear, since that's effectively what [i]did[/i] happen – no nukes had been fired by the time you got Polar to peace out and at that point TOP would have given peace without any questions.)

[quote]but like to admit it or not [b]TOP/IRON[/b] 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 [b]Archon[/b] came out clean when he [b]pushed Polar to peace[/b] instead of playing the martyr. Not to mention that the war itself was a because [b]TOP/IRON[/b] took a course of action in what they felt was a wrong towards the security of their alliance.[/quote]
This type of argument runs both ways.

[quote]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]
You should really read my posts before making a point personally about me. I've said that the pre-emptive strike was wrong since the beginning. My position, unlike C&G's, is entirely consistent: you shouldn't attack people because of vague paranoia about being a future threat. Only one side is doing that right now, and it's C&G. (And before someone brings up the BLEU war: yes, I have done it in the past. I learnt in the post-war reps handling phase that our impressions had been wrong, and that you can't read motivation from without. MK can't claim not to have known that having been attacked themselves for that reason in noCB – their half of the same war.)

The difference is that TOP/IRON were responding to an immediate and extremely likely threat (Archon even states in the OP here that yes, C&G [i]would[/i] have gone in on TOP/IRON in response to a 'standard' entry on the already engaged SF), and C&G are using a nebulous and distant 'threat' to justify keeping them down.

[lebubu]

[quote name='PrideAssassin' date='04 March 2010 - 01:50 PM' timestamp='1267707221' post='2213619']
Only MK felt the need to militarily back the raid. Athens wouldn't have been able to handle the repurcussions of their actions without the Bloc. No.

Funny, hmmm?
[/quote]

MK did not back the raid, MK backed its ally (who admittedly $%&@ed up).

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='04 March 2010 - 01:53 PM' timestamp='1267707392' post='2213620']
So had noCB, the GPA war, the GATO-1V war before Karma ... did that suddenly make Hegemony not aggressive at all, because 'the issues had been resolved'? [/quote]

Yes, they've all been resolved with the attacker recognizing its mistake and paying reps.

[quote]The fact that Athens had to pay reps shows that it was an aggressive action and alliance supported.[/quote]

Of course it was an aggressive action, like all tech raids. If tech raids are enough for you to label a bloc as aggressive, wait till MK starts raiding again - you'll cry.

[quote]As for a raid not being a war – if VE decided to raid MK en masse, are you seriously telling me you would not consider that an aggressive alliance war on our part?[/quote]

Starting a global nuclear war intentionally doesn't really qualify as a raid, but more as an attempt to bloody us and what we stand for (hint, hint?).

[quote]Some people call the GPA war a 'giant techraid' ... are you saying that would make it ok? [/quote]

Why are you asking me this? I never said the Ni! raid was ok.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='flak attack' date='04 March 2010 - 02:20 AM' timestamp='1267687424' post='2213531']
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
[/quote]
Yep, not the first time I disagreed with alterego - certainly wasn't the last either.

[quote name='uaciaut' date='04 March 2010 - 05:38 AM' timestamp='1267699290' post='2213587']
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.
[/quote]
So was the tech raid a defensive action then?

[quote name='lebubu' date='04 March 2010 - 08:38 AM' timestamp='1267710133' post='2213637']
Of course it was an aggressive action, like all tech raids. If tech raids are enough for you to label a bloc as aggressive, wait till MK starts raiding again - you'll cry.
[/quote]
I think that's his point.

[quote name='lebubu' date='04 March 2010 - 08:38 AM' timestamp='1267710133' post='2213637']
Why are you asking me this? I never said the Ni! raid was ok.
[/quote]
MK's actions said the Ni! raid was OK. You backed your ally in their efforts to avoid consequences from it.

Actions speak louder than words.

[lebubu]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='04 March 2010 - 02:53 PM' timestamp='1267711020' post='2213643']
I think that's his point.[/quote]

He merely stated the obvious.

[quote]
MK's actions said the Ni! raid was OK. You backed your ally in their efforts to avoid consequences from it.[/quote]

Drivel. Athens recognized its mistake and paid reps. MK, of course, offered military backing while the issue was being handled because we're not letting old friends to opportunistic dogs, salivating at the prospect of hitting us over what was nothing more than a mistake.

I don't know how (and don't really care either) how Invicta conducts its business, but MK backs its allies and tries to help them when they $%&@ up.

This does not mean that we'll enable any sort of behaviour - however, it does mean that we'll do everything in our power to remedy the situation before canceling or pretending the treaty isn't there.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='lebubu' date='04 March 2010 - 09:13 AM' timestamp='1267712216' post='2213648']
Drivel. Athens recognized its mistake and paid reps.
[/quote]
How much?

Also, how much reps did Athens pay TPF?

Oh right. That offensive action was completely justified.

[quote name='lebubu' date='04 March 2010 - 09:13 AM' timestamp='1267712216' post='2213648']
I don't know how (and don't really care either) how Invicta conducts its business, but MK backs its allies and tries to help them when they $%&@ up.
[/quote]
If you think we don't defend our allies, you haven't been paying attention.

[quote name='lebubu' date='04 March 2010 - 09:13 AM' timestamp='1267712216' post='2213648']
This does not mean that we'll enable any sort of behaviour - however, it does mean that we'll do everything in our power to remedy the situation before canceling or pretending the treaty isn't there.
[/quote]
So what sort of behaviour won't you enable exactly then?

[lebubu]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='04 March 2010 - 03:17 PM' timestamp='1267712431' post='2213651']
How much?[/quote]

[quote name='ramon666' date='08 December 2009 - 11:14 PM' timestamp='1260310663' post='2017921']
Athens and Federation of Buccaneers have offered to pay 2000 tech and they have offered to find us some donation deals. In fact, at Knights of Ni! we are happier about a donation deal, than about money, because it would take over 1.5 billion to recover from the losses. As we have only 5 or 6 aid slots per nation, it’s impossible to get that much cash. The donations would get us our tech, infra and land back and that’s what matters. Some donations have already been made, so a lot of people are a bit quicker than me .
[/quote]

[quote] That offensive action was completely justified. [/quote]

Absolutely.

[quote]If you think we don't defend our allies, you haven't been paying attention.[/quote]

Yet you complain about us supporting ours.

[quote]So what sort of behaviour won't you enable exactly then?
[/quote]

The kind your alliance did when it stood at NPO's side.

[Rocky Horror]

Hey look, the three musketeers in one post.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='03 March 2010 - 07:54 PM' timestamp='1267667893' post='2213187']
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]I'm not defending or hoping to shape the opinions of individual MK nations. People's kneejerk reactions were probably out of proportion, well !@#$, points to you.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='03 March 2010 - 11:13 PM' timestamp='1267679824' post='2213418']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.
[/quote]As above. In isolation, losing a load of tech isn't so bad really.

[quote name='Haflinger' date='04 March 2010 - 01:05 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]I recall Archon telling the MK military channel that he had to prove to NPO negotiators that you can't delete MPs.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='lebubu' date='04 March 2010 - 09:26 AM' timestamp='1267713008' post='2213659']
The kind your alliance did when it stood at NPO's side.
[/quote]
Funny, because we weren't at NPO's side when the GPA war happened, and that's what the Athens-TPF war looks like from over here.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]Yes, they've all been resolved with the attacker recognizing its mistake and paying reps. [/quote]
An interesting requirement for 'resolution'. So the attack on TPF is not resolved to you? What about GW1, is that still an open issue because NPO only had to apologise? This really seems like choosing your definitions very carefully to paint C&G in an unrealistically positive light.

[quote]Why are you asking me this? I never said the Ni! raid was ok. [/quote]
My mistake, I may have been conflating your posts and Uaciaut's. Glad you agree that it was not ok and that it was an aggressive action by a C&G alliance, backed up by the rest of the bloc.

[quote]This does not mean that we'll enable any sort of behaviour[/quote]
Maybe not, but it [i]does[/i] mean that you enable that particular action (which you state was a '$%&@ up', i.e. wrong).

[quote]Starting a global nuclear war intentionally doesn't really qualify as a raid, but more as an attempt to bloody us and what we stand for (hint, hint?)[/quote]
That doesn't actually answer the question I asked at all. If someone raided C&G en masse, and declared it as a tech raid (so there was no ambiguity), quadded you and then offered peace in all wars, would you consider that to be an 'unprovoked attack'? This goes to Uaciaut too as he was the one claiming that a raid on an alliance is not an an aggressive action.

But more directly regarding your quote, what [i]does[/i] count as a raid? At that point, TOP had not fired any nukes, and would have accepted a white peace. (Also, they did not start the war.)

[Tick1]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='04 March 2010 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1267713583' post='2213667']
My mistake, I may have been conflating your posts and Uaciaut's. Glad you agree that it was not ok and that it was an aggressive action by a C&G alliance, backed up by the rest of the bloc.
[/quote]

Bob...... What would have made C&G aggressive? They never said they'd be going on an aggressive war against Knights of Ni!. They only stated that had anyone declared war upon Athens and Federation of Buccaneers, that they'd be going in defense to counter the alliances looking to jump them. (NpO,TOP) I believe there where plenty of alliances also looking to jump at the throats of Athens which is why C&G stated they'd be there in defense. Just because C&G is an MADP doesn't mean that the action of one alliance within the bloc represents the ideas of the whole bloc. Saying that is also stating that one member within an alliance represents the ideas of that alliance and therefor should also make them that alliance.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='uaciaut' date='04 March 2010 - 04:38 AM' timestamp='1267699290' post='2213587']
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 [b]did have a CB on the table when it was declared - whether you or anyone else finds it viable or not[/b], 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 [i]security of their alliance[/i].
[/quote]

bolded section: see, it seems that CBs are entirely subjective. many thought Athens had no CB, others did. many think TOP had no CB, others do.

italicized section: so it is okay for Athens to aggressively attack another alliance due to their feeling threatened, but not for TOP? yeah blah blah blah double standards blah blah blah hypocrisy...

[quote name='lebubu' date='04 March 2010 - 05:55 AM' timestamp='1267703958' post='2213603']
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.
[/quote]

this ain't true. just because you think that, does not make it so. but of course if you are going for might makes right, it is entirely reasonable. any unprotected/untied alliance can be raided and then they can be warred and then they can be warred with the demand of reps afterwards. i mean it is not like anything in CN never builds upon itself once started. never.

yes i agree the issue has been resolved. and if you wish to play that game, then you can't bring up anything from NPO's past since that has been resolved. you can't bring up TOP's past since that has been resolved. and so on and so forth. can't wait for ya'll to have no arguments against the crippling terms you are trying to give TOP, ya know since you can't bring up anything NPO/Heg did as we can't bring up an alliance's past and all.

[quote name='uaciaut' date='04 March 2010 - 06:21 AM' timestamp='1267705525' post='2213610']
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.
[/quote]

it had nothing to do with Athen's military power. it had everything to do with the political and military protection being part of CnG gave Athens against any repercussions. but nice attempt at spinning it. i mean just like when Heg alliances would do as they pleased knowing WUT, Q, or 1V would protect them against any harm.

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='04 March 2010 - 08:28 AM' timestamp='1267713146' post='2213660']
As above. In isolation, losing a load of tech isn't so bad really.
[/quote]

yeah you can say that now while you are demanding a !@#$load of tech from a single alliance. it does not in any way whatsoever negate everything that has been said in the past and thus, your argument will always be nothing more than hypocrisy.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='04 March 2010 - 08:36 AM' timestamp='1267713583' post='2213667']
That doesn't actually answer the question I asked at all. If someone raided C&G en masse, and declared it as a tech raid (so there was no ambiguity), quadded you and then offered peace in all wars, would you consider that to be an 'unprovoked attack'? This goes to Uaciaut too as he was the one claiming that a raid on an alliance is not an an aggressive action.

But more directly regarding your quote, what [i]does[/i] count as a raid? At that point, TOP had not fired any nukes, and would have accepted a white peace. (Also, they did not start the war.)
[/quote]

you honestly think they are gonna say they see it as a raid? nah, they could not demand crippling reps if they saw it as a raid or attempt to decimate the other alliance(s).

[lebubu]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='04 March 2010 - 03:34 PM' timestamp='1267713488' post='2213666']
Funny, because we weren't at NPO's side when the GPA war happened, and that's what the Athens-TPF war looks like from over here.
[/quote]

I had a feeling that everything *does* look really distorted from "over there" so yeah.

[quote]An interesting requirement for 'resolution'. So the attack on TPF is not resolved to you? What about GW1, is that still an open issue because NPO only had to apologise? This really seems like choosing your definitions very carefully to paint C&G in an unrealistically positive light.[/quote]

An issue is resolved when both parties are content with the resolution, no? In this case, reps had to be paid.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='04 March 2010 - 03:36 PM' timestamp='1267713583' post='2213667']
Glad you agree that it was not ok and that it was an aggressive action by a C&G alliance, backed up by the rest of the bloc.[/quote]

Of course, as stated before, every tech raid is an aggressive action.

[quote]Maybe not, but it [i]does[/i] mean that you enable that particular action (which you state was a '$%&@ up', i.e. wrong).[/quote]

We enabled it because we knew it would be fixed.

[quote]That doesn't actually answer the question I asked at all. If someone raided C&G en masse, and declared it as a tech raid (so there was no ambiguity), quadded you and then offered peace in all wars, would you consider that to be an 'unprovoked attack'? [/quote]

This is getting silly. All raids and actual alliance wars function the same way (mechanics wise), they're all "unprovoked attacks" and "aggressive acts" ( ). However, the former is launched to loot, try to net a profit and move along while the latter is launched to cripple/destroy an enemy, with or without a valid CB.

My problem is with you and Dochartaigh determining the aggressiveness of an alliance/group of an alliances based on how much they raid... and how we're likely to "go after the beast" long before it hits us again given our "track record".

MK has raided hundreds of nations, many of them aligned. Not once did we [i]go[/i] after someone.

[quote]At that point, TOP had not fired any nukes, and would have accepted a white peace. (Also, they did not start the war.)
[/quote]

As far as C&G is concerned, our war with TOP & friends has been launched to bloody us and is separate from the initial war started by Polar.

[quote]so it is okay for Athens to aggressively attack another alliance due to their feeling threatened, but not for TOP? yeah blah blah blah double standards blah blah blah hypocrisy...[/quote]

Unlike TPF, CnG has done nothing to make TOP feel threatened, aside from silly comments coming from various members. TOP could have talked to our government if they actually felt that they're in danger.

[quote]this ain't true. just because you think that, does not make it so. but of course if you are going for might makes right, it is entirely reasonable. [/quote]

What exactly isn't true? Is there a threshold where a raid suddenly turns into a brutal alliance war? Is there no such thing as a tech raid? Alliances don't have raiding limits?

[quote]any unprotected/untied alliance can be raided and then they can be warred and then they can be warred with the demand of reps afterwards. [/quote]

What are you even on about? No, really. What.

[quote]can't wait for ya'll to have no arguments against the crippling terms you are trying to give TOP[/quote]

We certainly don't have any against the terms.

[raasaa]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='04 March 2010 - 10:11 AM' timestamp='1267715727' post='2213684']
italicized section: so it is okay for Athens to aggressively attack another alliance due to their feeling threatened, but not for TOP? yeah blah blah blah double standards blah blah blah hypocrisy...
[/quote]
Wait waah...

You are comparison is way off.

TPF conspired to destroy Athens, by sending a crack team of agents to infiltrate and take over Athens. This was their leader, mhawk's brainchild and had a lot of other government involved in it. Non-government members of MK bashed TOP around on the OWF. If TOP feels insecure and threatened over that, then they definitely need to grow up.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='03 March 2010 - 08:54 PM' timestamp='1267667893' post='2213187']
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]
And you might notice that not one the people complaining was in MK. MK made a only one comment about the reps in that topic and that was a clarification on the amount.

[Bob Janova]

That's true, but I'm not going to dig around in every thread between 2008 and now to find the many quotes from C&Gers complaining about how unfair the large reps were. There's plenty even in this thread until people started to realise that they wanted to be able to justify large reps.

[quote]This is getting silly. All raids and actual alliance wars function the same way (mechanics wise), they're all "unprovoked attacks" and "aggressive acts" ( ). However, the former is launched to loot, try to net a profit and move along while the latter is launched to cripple/destroy an enemy, with or without a valid CB.

My problem is with you and Dochartaigh determining the aggressiveness of an alliance/group of an alliances based on how much they raid... and how we're likely to "go after the beast" long before it hits us again given our "track record".[/quote]
Wait, so raids are aggressive, unprovoked attacks, and yet a pattern of raiding is not a pattern of aggressive, unprovoked attacking? That doesn't make sense. And you're still trying to conflate raiding unaligned nations with raiding alliances. One of those is an aggressive, unprovoked alliance war (genuinely unprovoked, not just an over-reaction like TOP/IRON's attack on you).

I didn't say you're likely to go after TOP/IRON again, by the way, I've said that TOP/IRON are not likely to come after you. Though as each day of oppression and high reps goes by, that becomes more likely. (Yes, I said oppression. You've been rolling them for over a month through your own choice, and you are keeping them down. At this point it doesn't matter that they started it.)

[quote]As far as C&G is concerned, our war with TOP & friends has been launched to bloody us and is separate from the initial war started by Polar.[/quote]
Oh dear, you still can't read? TOP's DoW (yes, the one you are so fond of quoting) states three times that they are entering as part of the existing coalition. I thought this was beyond question by now but apparently some of you are still pushing it.

[quote]An issue is resolved when both parties are content with the resolution, no?[/quote]
Ah, well now we're back to 'everything is resolved when peace is agreed' so there was no reason to punish the Hegemony for all those 'resolved' issues, and no reason to make NPO pay all that tech.

[quote]Funny, because we weren't at NPO's side when the GPA war happened, and that's what the Athens-TPF war looks like from over here.[/quote]
Okay now you're just being silly. Although the TPF war wasn't really justifiable it was a lot closer to it than the War on Peace.

[tamerlane]

Listen Bobby J,

TOP may have tried to tack on their rationale for war as being part of the Polaris coalition but they failed. In fact, they were wholeheartedly rejected by that side (with the exception of NSO). No, TOP made quite clear they came in for C&G and C&G only. Stop trying to gloss the issue with the cellophane words they tried to use in order to appear as though they had a valid CB.

Also, proportionally, our reps to damage from 2008 were far in excess of the damage caused this war. If we gave TOP the same rate we received in 2008, then maybe some protest would be due.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='04 March 2010 - 04:52 PM' timestamp='1267721789' post='2213755']

Oh dear, you still can't read? TOP's DoW (yes, the one you are so fond of quoting) states three times that they are entering as part of the existing coalition. I thought this was beyond question by now but apparently some of you are still pushing it.


[/quote]

Oh dear, can't you read either? I would link you to every post from every TOP member in existence, concerning things we point out in the DoW...that are actually SAID in the DoW... that they go "Oh wait, Crymson worded that horribly." So you can understand after reading their DoW..and the horrible wording of it...and the constant reminder of said horrible wording...that you know, we just might dismiss everything in the DoW as being horribly worded. Even the part about them believing its the same war.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='04 March 2010 - 11:52 AM' timestamp='1267721789' post='2213755']


Okay now you're just being silly. Although the TPF war wasn't really justifiable it was a lot closer to it than the War on Peace.
[/quote]

BRB, forming a splinter alliance with the intention of destabilizing TOP. No one is going to know for about 6 months. Let me see how this turns out for me.

[lebubu]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='04 March 2010 - 05:52 PM' timestamp='1267721789' post='2213755']
Wait, so raids are aggressive, unprovoked attacks, and yet a pattern of raiding is not a pattern of aggressive, unprovoked attacking? That doesn't make sense. And you're still trying to conflate raiding unaligned nations with raiding alliances. One of those is an aggressive, unprovoked alliance war (genuinely unprovoked, not just an over-reaction like TOP/IRON's attack on you).[/quote]

It's kind of a stretch to imply that there's a correlation between raiding and aggressiveness of an alliance, and especially to use raids to construct a case on how we're likely to $%&@ TOP/IRON over after they surrender. Though, to be fair, I think it was only Dochartaigh who did the latter. Sure, you can say there's a pattern of aggression and unprovoked attacking when it comes to unaligneds, but it has nothing to do with how we conduct business on the political scene.

The TOP/IRON attack was an over-reaction, not an unprovoked attack? Oh.

[quote]I didn't say you're likely to go after TOP/IRON again, by the way, I've said that TOP/IRON are not likely to come after you. Though as each day of oppression and high reps goes by, that becomes more likely. (Yes, I said oppression. You've been rolling them for over a month through your own choice, and you are keeping them down. At this point it doesn't matter that they started it.)[/quote]

That part was directed at Doch's post.

[quote]Oh dear, you still can't read? TOP's DoW (yes, the one you are so fond of quoting) states three times that they are entering as part of the existing coalition. I thought this was beyond question by now but apparently some of you are still pushing it.[/quote]

Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it beyond question, but considering that goes both ways, we'll have to agree to disagree before one of us has an aneurysm.

[quote]Ah, well now we're back to 'everything is resolved when peace is agreed' so there was no reason to punish the Hegemony for all those 'resolved' issues, and no reason to make NPO pay all that tech.[/quote]

Making someone sign a peace agreement at gunpoint doesn't really resolve an issue. And before you bring TOP into the discussion, know that both parties are working on coming to some sort of agreement - there will obviously be no white peace, but we have no intention of keeping them down indefinitely. Not to mention that eating nukes is still relatively unpleasant.

[mhawk]

[quote name='AirMe' date='04 March 2010 - 10:11 AM' timestamp='1267726481' post='2213807']
BRB, forming a splinter alliance with the intention of destabilizing TOP. No one is going to know for about 6 months. Let me see how this turns out for me.
[/quote]
Splinters normally would do such things as talk to each other, or perhaps even more radical things like oh... not hate each other and ban access to each others channels?

Trying to paint the reality of what ZH was is almost like saying PC is a splinter cell to trick umbrella.

Edited March 4, 2010 by mhawk

[deathcat]

[quote name='mhawk' date='04 March 2010 - 10:52 AM' timestamp='1267728977' post='2213850']
Splinters normally would do such things as talk to each other, or perhaps even more radical things like oh... not hate each other and ban access to each others channels?

Trying to paint the reality of what ZH was is almost like saying PC is a splinter cell to trick umbrella.
[/quote]

unfortunately.. tis true.. lost a few good friends and a close knit family due to this...

I just hope we can resolve this war soon.. I would like to see if we can plan a more overt war CB next time

oo/ PEACE and Peace!

[HalfEmpty]

[quote name='deathcat' date='04 March 2010 - 02:11 PM' timestamp='1267730095' post='2213870']
unfortunately.. tis true.. lost a few good friends and a close knit family due to this...

I just hope we can resolve this war soon.. I would like to see if we can plan a more overt war CB next time

oo/ PEACE and Peace!
[/quote]

But it sez up-thread they were a [i]crack-team[/i]. What went so very wrong? Traitors, that's the word you're trying to find in the coals of your awesome BBQ kittuah.

Edit:

.-.. --- .-.. / .- - .... . -. ... / - .... .- - / .. ... / .- .-.. .-..

Also: Hi 'ya Melmakian cypher-sluth!

Edited March 4, 2010 by HalfEmpty

[Letum]

[quote name='uaciaut' date='04 March 2010 - 10:38 AM' timestamp='1267699290' post='2213587']
And this is completely un-biased, right. [/quote]

Bias? Please, do point out exactly what you regard as bias within my argument. I gave a fairly wide range of examples to support a universal theory of political behaviour, one which applies to both sides.


[quote]
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.
[/quote]

Perhaps, in your rush to repeat lines that have, by now, been well-rehearsed, you missed what my argument said. I will simplify it for you: A MDAP bloc, be it WUT or Continuum or CnG, comes with the guarantee that an individual member can act with more freedom than usual, and will have the military backing of the rest of the bloc in their endeavour. Thus, the argument that aggressive acts are the sole responsibility of autonomous alliances would fail, since the backing, even if passive, of such an action confers much of the responsibility for it to the rest of the block.

You seem to be trying to make an argument based on legitimacy or righteousness of each individual act in question; that is not really relevant to my point. Whether Athens was justified in their war or not, it was still an aggressive act. You cannot start redefining aggression based on what the initial belligerent thinks - nobody would admit to launching a war without reason.

If you can overcome your amusement long enough to see that I am not calling CnG an "evil power-hungry" bloc, perhaps you might realise that this is the same exact argument that has been used to confer responsibility for each action of the "hegemony" as a whole to its individual constituent members.

[Letum]

[quote name='tamerlane' date='04 March 2010 - 04:58 PM' timestamp='1267722144' post='2213760']
TOP may have tried to tack on their rationale for war as being part of the Polaris coalition but they failed. In fact, they were wholeheartedly rejected by that side (with the exception of NSO).
[/quote]

That is not factually accurate:
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79847&st=0

[quote]however, I do believe firmly that their DoW was clearly part of the \m/ war and all claims to the contrary are simply the worst e-lawyering possible.[/quote]