Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[Jared]

[quote name='shilo' date='07 March 2010 - 12:02 AM' timestamp='1267920449' post='2216401']
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.
[/quote]
Sorry but people on your side say they know that the counter offer wasn't going to be accepted, and that if they were in our shoes they would be asking for the same thing, a far cry from someone like you who only seems to know how to continue to shout some fantasized tech extortion scheme on our part.
Not to mention even people over at TOP admitted how stupidly retarded the negotiations have been going on their part, which I have been pleasantly surprised about.

[shilo]

[quote name='Jared' date='07 March 2010 - 01:33 AM' timestamp='1267922275' post='2216425']
Sorry but people on your side say they know that the counter offer wasn't going to be accepted, and that if they were in our shoes they would be asking for the same thing, a far cry from someone like you who only seems to know how to continue to shout some fantasized tech extortion scheme on our part.
Not to mention even people over at TOP admitted how stupidly retarded the negotiations have been going on their part, which I have been pleasantly surprised about.
[/quote]
Well, I guess we will see each other next time then when the negotiations continue, a man with your insights must be an asset to your side and obviously be part of the negotiation team.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Grand Lord of Funk' date='06 March 2010 - 05:09 PM' timestamp='1267917271' post='2216349']
[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.
[/quote]

[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=299&showentry=1439"]http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=299&showentry=1439[/url]

I'm not trolling. TOP/IRON and associates have offered to pay reps. The amounts they've offered aren't agreeable to CnG, but they did offer something other than white peace.

Calling me names won't changes the facts.

Mrs Troll? Jeeze, you seriously need to grow up.

The problem with people like you is that anything other than "OMG, you are SO RIGHT!" leads to name calling and lies.

[Quinoa Rex]

[quote name='shilo' date='06 March 2010 - 07:09 PM' timestamp='1267920846' post='2216408']
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]

The offer you were given isn't even 100% of the damages you and yours have done to the alliances you attacked aggressively. I don't see where you have any room to complain.

[shilo]

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' date='07 March 2010 - 02:08 AM' timestamp='1267924387' post='2216454']
The offer you were given isn't even 100% of the damages you and yours have done to the alliances you attacked aggressively. I don't see where you have any room to complain.
[/quote]
Lol, the damage done on one day of this war likely is higher than all the tech combined from our side. If you are looking for a complete reimbursement, you will never get it.

[Ejayrazz]

This is still being argued?

Edited March 7, 2010 by Ejayrazz

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='06 March 2010 - 01:49 PM' timestamp='1267901622' post='2216125']
These community standards exist for a reason. With the advent of warchests, it became apparent that nuclear war wasn't just an automatic complete loss for both sides and could be modified by organisation and preparation.

The essentially defensive nature of alliances nowadays is a natural progression of a game this old -- if there's no need for CBs, there's no way to have any winners and losers because regardless of diplomacy and all this game is played for, someone could just jump in for no reason and hit people they don't like.[/quote]

But they do that, attack for "no reason", now...actually, they've always done it.

[quote](OOC) It would be boring. It's a reasonable abstraction to be outraged or some !@#$ IC to justify making this game not just boring. I would rather you didn't come and burst our football, dude.[/quote]

[i]OOC: It is generally better if someone has a reason for pointing a gun at you in this game, but "I want your tech" usually gets it done. Even on a larger scale, wars are declared not because of some longer term strategic goal, like the Karma War, but simply out of boredom...the Woodstock Massacre comes to mind. The game conditions you want to create go against some pretty long standing "traditions" and are unreasonable not because they aren't good ideas, but because they are too idealistic.[/i]

[quote]I wish I could pointlessly insult your alliance but no one cares enough about Valhalla, it would be like pissing in an ocean made of piss.
[/quote]

We like that you don't care and hope that you continue not to care forever. We're not the 800 lb. gorilla in the room. We're here to fight some wars, kick some tails now and again, and have fun. So far while I've been associated with Valhalla, mission accomplished.

[Quinoa Rex]

[quote name='shilo' date='06 March 2010 - 08:14 PM' timestamp='1267924777' post='2216461']
Lol, the damage done on one day of this war likely is higher than all the tech combined from our side. If you are looking for a complete reimbursement, you will never get it.
[/quote]
Complete reimbursement? Not at all. What I'm not understanding is your reluctance to remunerate alliances you attacked aggressively and were defeated by. Our offer was somewhere in the realm of 50% reimbursement, which seems reasonable to me. Yours was less than 10%. That is a blatant insult.

[shilo]

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' date='07 March 2010 - 02:29 AM' timestamp='1267925628' post='2216471']
Complete reimbursement? Not at all. What I'm not understanding is your reluctance to remunerate alliances you attacked aggressively and were defeated by. Our offer was somewhere in the realm of 50% reimbursement, which seems reasonable to me. Yours was less than 10%. That is a blatant insult.
[/quote]
Well, I guess we should stop insulting each other with offers then, and get to a point where they don't insult us anymore, right?

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='lebubu' date='06 March 2010 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1267901564' post='2216123']
Ok seriously. What.
[/quote]

I've presented evidence and given testimony in the past that Karma was already organized well before the NPO-OV incident, that an ambush of some sort was in the works as early as mid-March '09, that alliances that became part of Karma were planning an attack on NPO prior to their canceling treaties with Pacifica, TPF and others in preparation for war as early as January, 2009, and if some people such as yourself weren't in on the planning and concept of operation until the last minute, that does not change these facts.

What's also fact is that I've long since concluded that there are people who want to believe their alliance's version of things even when presented with evidence and testimony to the contrary. Those who know the truth but profess the lie do so because it suits some sort of agenda. Whether that agenda involves lies told to other alliances in order to ensure their participation or neutrality during the Karma War or because current relations would be damaged if the facts weren't disputed, no longer actually matters to me any more. But I know what really happened and so do a number of others who want to paint me as some sort of *@*&%hole. To them I say, get a life.

These are hopefully my final words on this subject. My next words will likely be private, OOC, and not complimentary.

[arentak]

MK members were salivating at the chance to fight TOP. Quit crying about our "aggressive" attack already. Seriously, the battle was inevitable, and this "OMG, I'm a victim" kinda crap that MK keeps spouting is rather sickening as they try to leverage public opinion to allow them to exort greater reps.

Here's a few select quotes from the first 2 pages of the (30 pages) TOP DoW.


[quote name='TheNeverender' date='28 January 2010 - 10:44 PM' timestamp='1264740549' post='2138703']
You have no idea how happy you have made us. Congratulations on waking the sleeping giant.

Also, your opsec sucks.
[/quote]
[quote name='Unsure' date='28 January 2010 - 10:44 PM' timestamp='1264740528' post='2138699']
For the love of god, [i]finally.[/i]
[/quote]
[quote name='MagicalTrevor' date='28 January 2010 - 10:46 PM' timestamp='1264740686' post='2138741']
I thought you guys were gonna !@#$% out again. Must say when i heard about this this morning i was so excited.


It's game time
[/quote]


[quote name='Mack Truck' date='28 January 2010 - 10:51 PM' timestamp='1264740949' post='2138817']
[b]accept[/b]

Thank you so very much.
[/quote]

[quote name='Metallica5000' date='28 January 2010 - 10:53 PM' timestamp='1264741104' post='2138848']
ohhhh, finally
[/quote]

[quote name='Lafayette' date='28 January 2010 - 11:03 PM' timestamp='1264741706' post='2138987']
Indeed. I'd like to thank TOP for doing delivery. I mean, it'd have been a long drive across the web to go pick up our victory, but here you guys are bringing it to us piping hot and fresh.

It's hard to find good service like that anymore.
[/quote]

Edited March 7, 2010 by arentak

[lebubu]

MKers want to fight a lot of alliances, don't worry. Doesn't mean it's ok for them to jump us out of the blue - or for us, for that matter. I don't see how this has *any* relevance to the situation we're in.

You'll also have to note that a lot of people were excited because you (I'm assuming you're still TOP) basically cost your side the war with this move. We were worried for a second.

[shilo]

[quote name='lebubu' date='07 March 2010 - 03:36 AM' timestamp='1267929642' post='2216543']
MKers want to fight a lot of alliances, don't worry. Doesn't mean it's ok for them to jump us out of the blue - or for us, for that matter. I don't see how this has *any* relevance to the situation we're in.

You'll also have to note that a lot of people were excited because you (I'm assuming you're still TOP) basically cost your side the war with this move. We were worried for a second.
[/quote]
Why were you worried, you were an uninvolved third party that got attacked out of the blue, you would have never ended up fighting TOP had they not declared on you, no?

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='lebubu' date='06 March 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1267929642' post='2216543']
MKers want to fight a lot of alliances, don't worry. Doesn't mean it's ok for them to jump us out of the blue - or for us, for that matter. I don't see how this has *any* relevance to the situation we're in.

You'll also have to note that a lot of people were excited because you (I'm assuming you're still TOP) basically cost your side the war with this move. We were worried for a second.
[/quote]
You were worried but no one had planned to impose reps on the TOP&IRON/CnG front, it was suppose to end much like how NpO and \m/ peaced out except with everyone peacing it and not some alliances locked at war. It was due to CnG manipulating the situation at the time claiming it was an unrelated war unwilling to talk peace that damage has even gotten as high as it has.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Methrage

[arentak]

[quote name='lebubu' date='06 March 2010 - 08:36 PM' timestamp='1267929642' post='2216543']
You'll also have to note that a lot of people were excited because you (I'm assuming you're still TOP) basically cost your side the war with this move. We were worried for a second.
[/quote]
SO, MK admits it was one war. Thanks for that.

[lebubu]

[quote name='shilo' date='07 March 2010 - 03:41 AM' timestamp='1267929961' post='2216548']
Why were you worried, you were an uninvolved third party that got attacked out of the blue, you would have never ended up fighting TOP had they not declared on you, no?
[/quote]

Had the war followed its logical course (and not peaced out), MK would have had to honour its treaties at some point. Our target, as well as the course of the war had TOP & Co not preempted are, of course, subject to speculation at this point. Anything else?

[quote name='arentak' date='07 March 2010 - 03:45 AM' timestamp='1267930191' post='2216551']
SO, MK admits it was one war. Thanks for that.
[/quote]

What?

edit: This very thing has been addressed by Archon in the OP, as well.

Edited March 7, 2010 by lebubu

[Quinoa Rex]

[quote name='shilo' date='06 March 2010 - 08:44 PM' timestamp='1267926544' post='2216486']
Well, I guess we should stop insulting each other with offers then, and get to a point where they don't insult us anymore, right?
[/quote]
What I'm saying is that you have no reason to be insulted at 50% reimbursement.

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='lebubu' date='06 March 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1267929642' post='2216543']
MKers want to fight a lot of alliances, don't worry. Doesn't mean it's ok for them to jump us out of the blue - or for us, for that matter. I don't see how this has *any* relevance to the situation we're in.

You'll also have to note that a lot of people were excited because you (I'm assuming you're still TOP) basically cost your side the war with this move. We were worried for a second.
[/quote]
Finally an MK member admits they wanted TOP destroyed. (This is me NOT confirming TOPs' suspicions), but rather quite a few acted like as if MK never wanted this to happen when we all know this was a golden opportunity. I honestly praise your message for its honesty in the sense where you at least admit people want others destroyed...but it doesn't mean they'll act on said actions.

[neneko]

[quote name='arentak' date='07 March 2010 - 03:45 AM' timestamp='1267930191' post='2216551']
SO, MK admits it was one war. Thanks for that.
[/quote]
How long will it be until you and janova realize that nobody cares what you call it? It's semantics and doesn't change how anything actually went down.


edit:
[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='07 March 2010 - 04:21 AM' timestamp='1267932397' post='2216579']
Finally an MK member admits they wanted TOP destroyed. (This is me NOT confirming TOPs' suspicions), but rather quite a few acted like as if MK never wanted this to happen when we all know this was a golden opportunity. I honestly praise your message for its honesty in the sense where you at least admit people want others destroyed...but it doesn't mean they'll act on said actions.
[/quote]
Finally? You don't talk to alot of us do you? Most of us is quite happy with getting to fight TOP. As lebubu said though that doesn't change what happened. It still doesn't make it okay for them to attack us without a cb.

Edited March 7, 2010 by neneko

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='neneko' date='06 March 2010 - 10:23 PM' timestamp='1267932489' post='2216580']
How long will it be until you and janova realize that nobody cares what you call it? It's semantics and doesn't change how anything actually went down.


edit:

Finally? You don't talk to alot of us do you? Most of us is quite happy with getting to fight TOP. As lebubu said though that doesn't change what happened. It still doesn't make it okay for them to attack us without a cb.
[/quote]
I talk to those who come to these halls.

Also, I agree with your last sentence.

[neneko]

[quote name='Methrage' date='07 March 2010 - 12:31 AM' 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]
In a war they started to bloody us I don't think 100% is too much.

I'd say we're fully within our rights to pass reps on to our allies if we choose to do that. Would you really be whining any less if all the reps went to CnG?

[raasaa]

[quote name='Baldr' date='06 March 2010 - 07:55 PM' timestamp='1267923612' post='2216442']
[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=299&showentry=1439"]http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=299&showentry=1439[/url]
[/quote]
Eh, those are quite lenient. I would recommend CnG to go with a flat rate of "50% of your alliance's tech" for all alliances that they are currently fighting it. Then you can distribute that 50% with your allies who fought alongside.

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='06 March 2010 - 08:20 PM' timestamp='1267925086' post='2216464']
This is still being argued?
[/quote]
It will be, for a long time. TOP and allies are using the same tactic they used during the recent TPF war, "keep bawwing till the other side gets tired, even if the argument is senseless and going in circles"


[quote name='arentak' date='06 March 2010 - 09:22 PM' timestamp='1267928851' post='2216532']
MK members were salivating at the chance to fight TOP. Quit crying about our "aggressive" attack already. Seriously, the battle was inevitable, and this "OMG, I'm a victim" kinda crap that MK keeps spouting is rather sickening as they try to leverage public opinion to allow them to exort greater reps.
[/quote]
Well, its at least better than the crap you and your allies are spouting after starting a war over paranoia. Btw, the only people "crying" are your alliance members and your allies, i am yet to see any CnG member crying over your aggressive attack. If, pointing it out in an argument is to be termed as crying..then.......:speechless:

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='06 March 2010 - 04:21 PM' timestamp='1267914369' post='2216312']
That was not an aggressive war, it was a retaliation for an offensive act (ie spying and infiltration). It was not attacking an alliance just because no one likes them. Argue otherwise until the cows come home, I implore you.

An act of retaliation precludes the description of an event as "pre-emptive". The meaning of the word bears [i]no relation[/i] to the element of surprise.

There's another term for that.

"Surprise attack".
[/quote]

yes, because what i stated was that TPF were poor innocent victims. not that they planned something out that was stupid to do and that the CB that Athens had was legit. i simply stated that Athens/Co did not use diplomacy and preemptively attacked TPF.

preemptive means that it was done before anything else. in military terms, preemptive attacks are usually done when nation A feels that nation B is a threat and decides to take out nation B before nation B can attack nation A. that is exactly what Athens/Co did. it usually involves surprise mainly due to the fact that if your enemy knew, they can prepare and that usually ends bad. (see how BBW did not end bad and TPF got crushed in it compared to this war and what is happening to TOP)

[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). 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.
[/quote]

actually, i stated that a surprise attack is usually a preemptive attack (especially when it is the opening salvo of a war).

i can agree that CnG have every right to defend yourselves. it seems that other MK members have a different idea than you on community standards.

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='06 March 2010 - 05:03 PM' 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]

really? i have no idea what a preemptive strike is? i do believe i gave a pretty clear cut definition of it. it seems that you had the same issue as lebubu. i never stated that preemptive strikes=surprise attack. i stated that a preemptive strikes uses an element of surprise.

if you go on and read my reply to neneko i explain it some more. next time, i would suggest you read what i post before you attempt to state i don't know something.

[quote name='lebubu' date='06 March 2010 - 05:30 PM' 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.
[/quote]

i ain't calling ya'll hypocrites for not supporting Polaris. i am calling ya'll hypocrites for stating that no one should be capable of enforcing community standards, and then have ya'lls members come out here stating how they are enforcing some sort of community standard.

i think that is a pretty clear cut case that despite you attempting to defend, is pretty indefensible.

[quote name='AirMe' date='06 March 2010 - 05:34 PM' timestamp='1267918725' post='2216366']
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.
[/quote]

no i was there and personally never cared. in fact, i enjoyed the balls shown by the enemy. i never cared that BLEU was preemptively attacked in the SPW except for the fact that it meant the enemy got to engage Polar allies on their terms instead of theirs.

TPF was a preemptive attack. it may have been done in retaliation but that matters little considering that the CB was 4 months old at least and the plan was aborted by ZH with no other plan put into motion by TPF. while the aborted plan was a legit CB, it does not make the attack any less of a preemptive strike to ensure that TPF was incapable of doing anything else to threaten Athens. also, i have always thought that TPF should have come clean and took whatever lumps needed to be taken at the end of Karma.

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='06 March 2010 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1267919534' post='2216380']
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.
That would be closer to 1million tech to CnG.
[/quote]

this coming from the very person who does not read my posts and then proceeds to think he is picking holes in my argument is just hilarious. i would suggest you take your own advice.

[quote name='AirMe' date='06 March 2010 - 06:12 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]

i really really dislike this argument as it seems to state that everyone one of TTItD's allies should be cowards and not aid their friends in TTItD... i doubt that this is the stance that CnG would ever take with their allies so i do not know why this argument is used in such proliferation by CnG/co?

can we please just stop using this argument? i mean even ODN has finally outlived this kind of argument and shown themselves to be stalwart allies to CnG.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='neneko' date='06 March 2010 - 10:40 PM' timestamp='1267933507' post='2216600']
In a war they started to bloody us I don't think 100% is too much.

I'd say we're fully within our rights to pass reps on to our allies if we choose to do that. Would you really be whining any less if all the reps went to CnG?
[/quote]
If CnG was just asking for the 30k tech and all concerns TOP has over slot limits and restrictions on them while paying were addressed correctly I think they would be reasonable. I still think 30k is a lot though.

[lebubu]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='07 March 2010 - 07:08 AM' timestamp='1267942404' post='2216700']
i ain't calling ya'll hypocrites for not supporting Polaris. i am calling ya'll hypocrites for stating that no one should be capable of enforcing community standards, and then have ya'lls members come out here stating how they are enforcing some sort of community standard.

i think that is a pretty clear cut case that despite you attempting to defend, is pretty indefensible.
[/quote]

Your entire argument is built on the post of one member. Now listen carefully - you'll be in a position to accuse us of forcing our standards upon others when we actually involve ourselves in other people's business. Until then, I suggest you stop using that word you're so fond of, at least regarding our defensive war. When people crash our party, they play by our rules - it's pretty clear-cut, as you like to put it.

[quote]i do believe i gave a pretty clear cut definition of it[/quote]

I suggest you re-read your post before saying that we have an 'issue' because we didn't comprehend your nebulous definition.