Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[Grand Lord of Funk]

So what do we have,

An alliance that won't offer White Peace and an alliance that won't accept anything but.

Sounds like a 100 years War in the making.

Guess I'll go gray, quit TFD, and become a War Profiteer and make a bundle on selling tech.......

GLF

[Baldr]

[quote name='Grand Lord of Funk' date='06 March 2010 - 04:53 PM' timestamp='1267916320' post='2216334']
So what do we have,

An alliance that won't offer White Peace and an alliance that won't accept anything but.

Sounds like a 100 years War in the making.

Guess I'll go gray, quit TFD, and become a War Profiteer and make a bundle on selling tech.......

GLF
[/quote]

You obviously aren't paying attention. TOP has offered reps, stated that they will surrender. That doesn't match your "and an alliance that won't accept anything but white peace" thing at all.

As things stand, the reps offer TOP has made, and the reps offer CnG has made, are vastly different. But lets not start pretending this is a "white peace or no peace at all" thing, because it clearly isn't.

[lebubu]

[quote name='shilo' date='06 March 2010 - 11:40 PM' timestamp='1267915511' post='2216323']
You cannot retaliate for something that was abandoned in the planning stages.
[/quote]

It wasn't abandoned in its planning stages, otherwise ZH would never have formed (not to mention gotten an Athens protectorate). The validity of our CB bears no relevance to the matter at hand, so feel free to debate it somewhere else.

That being said, Dochartaigh calling our war with TPF a 'preemptive strike' because it was a surprise attack is hilarious. On a related note, C&G is not fighting to preserve any community standards - you can preempt whoever you like - see if we give a !@#$. But the moment you hit us or any of our allies, we have every right to defend ourselves in any way we see fit and only allow the aggressor to leave the battlefield [i]on our terms[/i]. If you have a problem with that, tough.

[Baldr]

[quote name='lebubu' date='06 March 2010 - 04:57 PM' timestamp='1267916534' post='2216337']
It wasn't abandoned in its planning stages, otherwise ZH would never have formed (not to mention gotten an Athens protectorate).
[/quote]

Funny how ZH was made a protectorate of Athens, when ZH were the ones that supposedly were there to spy on you, but TPF got attacked, despite the fact that every ZH member pretty much had to know this plan, and hardly any TPF members knew about it.

Why wasn't ZH attacked?

Edited March 6, 2010 by Baldr

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='shilo' date='06 March 2010 - 04:40 PM' timestamp='1267915511' post='2216323']
You cannot retaliate for something that was abandoned in the planning stages.

You can punish for having planned to infiltrate, although that plan was abandoned before it was ever put into action.
And that you did, with a sneak attack, that you justified tactically ("they would have jumped into peacemode").

So yes, unless you are the world thought crimes unit, you very much so made an aggressive attack against TPF which has not made any kind of hostile move against Athens, unless you forgot all the proof that showed that TPF ever did anything hostile/aggressive against Athens after they abandoned those infiltration ideas.
[/quote]Honestly, I wasn't around for this. I'm not up for taking apart the nitty-gritty of how valid the CB was. What I'm contending is that, for a change, the people I'm disagreeing with have no idea what the words they are using mean.

[b][Edit][/b] For a clearer version of the above, see lebubu's post.

[b]Baldr:[/b] Take it elsewhere? I'm not entirely sure of the relevance of that issue to this topic.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Rocky Horror

[Grand Lord of Funk]

[quote name='Baldr' date='06 March 2010 - 05:57 PM' timestamp='1267916514' post='2216336']
You obviously aren't paying attention. TOP has offered reps, stated that they will surrender. That doesn't match your "and an alliance that won't accept anything but white peace" thing at all.

As things stand, the reps offer TOP has made, and the reps offer CnG has made, are vastly different. But lets not start pretending this is a "white peace or no peace at all" thing, because it clearly isn't.
[/quote]

[i]It has been made clear to us, the Union, that, at least with respect to TOP and IRON, the only exit path from this current war is a global white peace.[/i]

Wow, you are so right. How did I EVER misinterpret that statement. A thousand apologies Mrs. Troll.

GLF

[shilo]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='07 March 2010 - 12:03 AM' timestamp='1267916877' post='2216341']
Honestly, I wasn't around for this. I'm not up for taking apart the nitty-gritty of how valid the CB was. What I'm contending is that, for a change, the people I'm disagreeing with have no idea what the words they are using mean.
[/quote]
So you have no idea what you are talking about, but you figured you could try to make an argument with it and then point out the other side doesn't understand their own words. Great

[quote name='lebubu' date='06 March 2010 - 11:57 PM' timestamp='1267916534' post='2216337']
That being said, Dochartaigh calling our war with TPF a 'preemptive strike' because it was a surprise attack is hilarious. On a related note, C&G is not fighting to preserve any community standards - you can preempt whoever you like - see if we give a !@#$. But the moment you hit us or any of our allies, we have every right to defend ourselves in any way we see fit and only allow the aggressor to leave the battlefield [i]on our terms[/i]. If you have a problem with that, tough.
[/quote]
Great, every one from your side has been whining on and off how detrimental it is for the community that CnG were aggressively attacked and how terrible and immoral and whatnot it was. You are the first CnG member I ever heard saying it wasn't a warcrime of the highest moral outrage. I think once we get passed that incredible amount of whining (though I think it is still the party line, so you might wanna check with your superiors regarding this, officially you have to still consider this a direct attack against community standards) I am sure peace talks will be that much easier

[lebubu]

[quote name='shilo' date='07 March 2010 - 12:20 AM' timestamp='1267917931' post='2216358']
Great, every one from your side has been whining on and off how detrimental it is for the community that CnG were aggressively attacked and how terrible and immoral and whatnot it was. You are the first CnG member I ever heard saying it wasn't a warcrime of the highest moral outrage. I think once we get passed that incredible amount of whining (though I think it is still the party line, so you might wanna check with your superiors regarding this, officially you have to still consider this a direct attack against community standards) I am sure peace talks will be that much easier
[/quote]

My comment was directed at the people accusing us of being hypocrites for attempting to enforce community standards after not supporting Polar's move against \m/. We are enforcing absolutely nothing, we are defending ourselves. As for how bad the attack was, it's only as bad as an unprovoked attack can get. So bad enough.

Regarding the whining comment, let me remind you it is your side crying and playing the victim after making the most reckless move in recent years. We're quite content with grinding you into dust and are merely addressing your ridiculous arguments.

As far as peace talks go, I'm sure they'll go better once you realize that you're at our mercy and that making insulting counteroffers is a bad idea when dealing with us.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='neneko' date='06 March 2010 - 03:46 PM' timestamp='1267908686' post='2216223']
Sorry if I was unclear. I didn't mean that you should pay for our lost infra. I'm satisfied with 100% of the tech you've destroyed. Wich still would be more than the last offer you got. If we want to take the infra into account the reps would be alot bigger.

I still don't get what point you're trying to get across since Ni was reimbursed for the raid.
[/quote]
In an alliance war where everyone takes massive damage including TOP the most, expecting them to pay 100% of the tech they destroyed in a conflict MK chose to prolong before offering terms is unreasonable. Also reps for others in terms is unreasonable as well.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Methrage

[AirMe]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='06 March 2010 - 05:00 PM' timestamp='1267913137' post='2216292']
i never thought you would be one to attempt an ad hominem AirMe. Preemptive strikes are a tactical thing, not a community standard. i have never once seen anyone cry out against a preemptive strike until now. because if it is so morally wrong, why did CnG allow Athens to use a preemptive strike against TPF? and yes, before anyone says anything, a preemptive strike is simply an aggressive attack done with the element of surprise. the fact that TPF nor almost anyone else knew that TPF was about to be hit (i mean no diplomacy at all was used) kinda shows the hypocrisy.


[/quote]

You must have missed the WUT tears in GW3 when they were preempted. Because there were a lot of them then.

TPF wasn't a preemptive strike. It was retaliation for an act that was intended to destroy it's community, TPF should have come clean with it at some point in time if they didn't want it to bite them in the rear.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Methrage' date='06 March 2010 - 06:31 PM' timestamp='1267918573' post='2216364']
In an alliance war where everyone takes massive damage including TOP the most, expecting them to pay 100% of the tech they destroyed in a conflict MK chose to prolong before offering terms is unreasonable. Also reps for others in terms is unreasonable as well.
[/quote]

Do you realize that the original terms don't come anywhere close to the amount of tech that has been destroyed in this war?

What are fair reps in your eyes?

Edited March 6, 2010 by AirMe

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='AirMe' date='06 March 2010 - 06:36 PM' timestamp='1267918869' post='2216368']
Do you realize that the original terms don't come anywhere close to the amount of tech that has been destroyed in this war?
[/quote]
The damage probably gets bigger each day that trying to get such high reps despite aid slots limitations isn't worth it.

[shilo]

[quote name='lebubu' date='07 March 2010 - 12:30 AM' timestamp='1267918540' post='2216363']
My comment was directed at the people accusing us of being hypocrites for attempting to enforce community standards after not supporting Polar's move against \m/. We are enforcing absolutely nothing, we are defending ourselves. As for how bad the attack was, it's only as bad as an unprovoked attack can get. So bad enough.

Regarding the whining comment, let me remind you it is your side crying and playing the victim after making the most reckless move in recent years. We're quite content with grinding you into dust and are merely addressing your ridiculous arguments.

As far as peace talks go, I'm sure they'll go better once you realize that you're at our mercy and that making insulting counteroffers is a bad idea when dealing with us.
[/quote]
Meh, you're backpedaling again

Anyways, our side hasn't been complaining about being your victims, we've just been pointing out, that whenever you cried about this lengthy unfair and evil and immoral war of aggression, that you could have given us peace right at the start, and thus have avoided the massive damage that you took and take (not saying we aren't taking either). So saying the reps have to be high because the damage was so massive is pure hypocrisy when it was your side that dragged this conflict into the one month nuclear war it is now.

Regarding the latter, well, no one on our side is denying we lost the war, and we also clearly showed we are willing to pay to end it. It's just that if the terms are as bad as yours were, fighting in a perma-war doesn't become less attractive, it becomes more attractive.

So it's actually your side that has to decide whether they continue demanding reps that will ultimately lead to the conclusion on our side that talking to you is a waste of time, and that we should invest the time in organizimg that perma-war you obviously want us to be in.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Methrage' date='06 March 2010 - 06:39 PM' timestamp='1267919061' post='2216371']
The damage probably gets bigger each day that trying to get such high reps despite aid slots limitations isn't worth it.
[/quote]

Here is the thing. There was no time limit placed on the reps so all the complaining of aid slot limitations goes right out the window. It is also called a negotiation for a reason.

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='shilo' date='06 March 2010 - 05:20 PM' timestamp='1267917931' post='2216358']
So you have no idea what you are talking about, but you figured you could try to make an argument with it and then point out the other side doesn't understand their own words. Great [/quote]Whatever, you clearly don't know who's talking about what here.

I know there's a lot of posts in the topic, but if you can't be bothered reading them then don't bother "calling me out" without knowing the context.

This is it broken down: Man misuses word (vitally, vitally important word to his argument), I illustrate that he has done so. Man 2 appears and starts picking holes in things I never made any claim about.

Read up, kid.
[quote name='Methrage' date='06 March 2010 - 05:31 PM' timestamp='1267918573' post='2216364']
In an alliance war where everyone takes massive damage including TOP the most, expecting them to pay 100% of the tech they destroyed in a conflict MK chose to prolong before offering terms is unreasonable. Also reps for others in terms is unreasonable as well.
[/quote]That would be closer to 1million tech to CnG.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='AirMe' date='06 March 2010 - 06:36 PM' timestamp='1267918869' post='2216368']
What are fair reps in your eyes?
[/quote]
Right now I don't think CnG deserves any with how they are approaching peace. If CnG offered more reasonable terms recognizing both sides took heavy losses they might be more deserving, but they can't expect to recoup losses or turn TOP into a tech farm, just get some tech to help rebuild a little.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Methrage

[lebubu]

[quote name='shilo' date='07 March 2010 - 12:41 AM' timestamp='1267919160' post='2216373']
Meh, you're backpedaling again :[/quote]

Excuse me?

[quote]Anyways, our side hasn't been complaining about being your victims, we've just been pointing out, that whenever you cried about this lengthy unfair and evil and immoral war of aggression, that you could have given us peace right at the start, and thus have avoided the massive damage that you took and take (not saying we aren't taking either). So saying the reps have to be high because the damage was so massive is pure hypocrisy when it was your side that dragged this conflict into the one month nuclear war it is now.[/quote]

Of course we could have given you white peace. Unfortunately, that's not how it works - you don't deserve white peace and we'll continue the war until you're ready to actually own up to your mistake.

[quote]and that we should invest the time in organizimg that perma-war you obviously want us to be in.
[/quote]

You don't go on the offensive and get to play martyr when you lose and the defending party doesn't let you off the hook easily. Welcome to the consequences (so 2008!).

[AirMe]

[quote name='Methrage' date='06 March 2010 - 06:51 PM' timestamp='1267919780' post='2216384']
Right now I don't think CnG deserves any with how they are approaching peace. If CnG offered more reasonable terms recognizing both sides took heavy losses they might be more deserving, but they can't expect to recoup losses or turn TOP into a tech farm, just get some tech to help rebuild a little.
[/quote]

Hi, I kicked you in the balls and stole your BMW. But since shouted obscenities at me, I won't be paying for the damage I caused even though I am fully at fault.

You realize your line of reasoning there is as absurd as the CB TOP used?

No one is turning TOP and allies into a tech farm. In fact, half of the reps in the original offer could be supplied by nations not in the surrendering alliances. Instead of yelling for the sake of yelling, if people took a step back and realize the original offer isn't as UNREASONABLE and DISGUSTING as some of you claim.

Edited March 7, 2010 by AirMe

[shilo]

[quote name='lebubu' date='07 March 2010 - 12:52 AM' timestamp='1267919824' post='2216386']
Of course we could have given you white peace. Unfortunately, that's not how it works - you don't deserve white peace and we'll continue the war until you're ready to actually own up to your mistake.
[/quote]
[quote name='shilo' date='07 March 2010 - 12:41 AM' timestamp='1267919160' post='2216373']
Regarding the latter, well, no one on our side is denying we lost the war, [b]and we also clearly showed we are willing to pay to end it[/b]. It's just that if the terms are as bad as yours were, fighting in a perma-war doesn't become less attractive, it becomes more attractive.
[/quote]
I usually hate quoting myself, though in this instance, I point you out to the part I bolded and simply ask "what white peace?" And furthermore refer you to the blog where many of your comrades showed what true quality posters they really are, and then I repeat the question "what white peace?".



[quote name='lebubu' date='07 March 2010 - 12:52 AM' timestamp='1267919824' post='2216386']
You don't go on the offensive and get to play martyr when you lose and the defending party doesn't let you off the hook easily. Welcome to the consequences (so 2008!).[/quote]

No one is playing martyr, it's a statement of fact that we are willing to fight as hard and long as takes if you force us into a perma-war and that we will continue doing a lot of damage to you guys for a very long time. On the other hand, by the fact that we are talking with you guys and made a counter-offer to your first attempt of tech extortion, we clearly are showing we do seek peace. Just not peace for any price. That's a big difference.

[lebubu]

[quote name='shilo' date='07 March 2010 - 01:02 AM' timestamp='1267920449' post='2216401']
I usually hate quoting myself, though in this instance, I point you out to the part I bolded and simply ask "what white peace?" And furthermore refer you to the blog where many of your comrades showed what true quality posters they really are, and then I repeat the question "what white peace?".
[/quote]

My response was to this:

[quote]Anyways, our side hasn't been complaining about being your victims, we've just been pointing out, that whenever you cried about this lengthy unfair and evil and immoral war of aggression, that [b]you could have given us peace right at the start[/b], and thus have avoided the massive damage that you took and take (not saying we aren't taking either). So saying the reps have to be high because the damage was so massive is pure hypocrisy when it was your side that dragged this conflict into the one month nuclear war it is now.[/quote]

The part about insulting counteroffers (in one of my previous posts) should address the "we're willing to pay to end it" thing, I think.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='AirMe' date='06 March 2010 - 06:59 PM' timestamp='1267920234' post='2216399']
Hi, I kicked you in the balls and stole your BMW. But since shouted obscenities at me, I won't be paying for the damage I caused even though I am fully at fault.
[/quote]
A better comparison would be if the guy who got his car stolen then proceeded to burn the car theifs house down as well as their families and friend's houses. Then it escalated into a war with many cars and houses destroyed. Then as the destruction is still ongoing saying it can't stop unless the other one agrees to pay for everything they destroyed despite having all their stuff destroyed throughout the process as well.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Methrage

[shilo]

[quote name='lebubu' date='07 March 2010 - 01:06 AM' timestamp='1267920651' post='2216402']
My response was to this:
[quote]Anyways, our side hasn't been complaining about being your victims, we've just been pointing out, that whenever you cried about this lengthy unfair and evil and immoral war of aggression, that you could have given us peace right at the start, and thus have avoided the massive damage that you took and take (not saying we aren't taking either). So saying the reps have to be high because the damage was so massive is pure hypocrisy when it was your side that dragged this conflict into the one month nuclear war it is now.[/quote]
[/quote]
Cool, I think I must have missed where you guys made any mention of peace before we got this offer last week.


And obviously, we do need to improve our communication, as you sent as an offer we consider insulting, and our offer seemed to insult you guys


[quote name='Methrage' date='07 March 2010 - 01:08 AM' timestamp='1267920794' post='2216406']
A better comparison would be if the guy who got his car stolen then proceeded to burn the car theifs house down as well as their families and friend's houses. Then it escalated into a war with many cars and houses destroyed. Then as the destruction is still ongoing saying it can't stop unless the other one agrees to pay for everything they destroyed despite having all their stuff destroyed throughout the process as well.
[/quote]
That's a pretty good RL comparison I have to admit.

Edited March 7, 2010 by shilo

[AirMe]

[quote name='Methrage' date='06 March 2010 - 07:08 PM' timestamp='1267920794' post='2216406']
A better comparison would be if the guy who got his car stolen then proceeded to burn the car theifs house down as well as their families and friend's houses. Then it escalated into a war with many cars and houses destroyed. Then as the destruction is still ongoing saying it can't stop unless the other one agrees to pay for everything they destroyed despite having all their stuff destroyed throughout the process as well.
[/quote]

Your analogy doesn't really work here because no one had to come in defense of TTItD since they took the scorched earth strategy to begin with. The only reason people on TTItD's side took damage was because they entered voluntarily on oA's.

But hey, sucker punching a whole bloc is cool right?

Edited March 7, 2010 by AirMe

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='AirMe' date='06 March 2010 - 07:12 PM' timestamp='1267921010' post='2216411']
Your analogy doesn't really work here because no one had to come in defense of TTItD since they took the scorched earth strategy to begin with. The only reason people on TTItD's side took damage was because they entered voluntarily on oA's.

But hey, sucker punching a whole bloc is cool right?
[/quote]
Sucker punching the alliance with 20+ alliances warring them as those 20+ alliances are trying to extract historic reps I think is cooler.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Methrage' date='06 March 2010 - 07:15 PM' timestamp='1267921221' post='2216416']
Sucker punching the alliance with 20+ alliances warring them as those 20+ alliances are trying to extract historic reps I think is cooler.
[/quote]

Ehh....what?