Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[neneko]

[quote name='shilo' date='07 March 2010 - 06:53 PM' timestamp='1267984694' post='2216976']
What I don't quite get is why anyone thinks it's about TIDTT getting out of this ahead of CnG. That will never be the case, we have all been soundly defeated in this war, who is there to debate this?

However, it's up to CnG to decide whether they can start rebuilding completely unhindered tommorow, and get tech/money on top of that from us, or if they will always have nations fighting them, and don't get any tech/money at all.
Because after this, CnG definitely won't be competing with us anymore, it'll be with other groups. And they can already rebuild right now, and in some cases got reps already.

It's that rationale that I don't quite get, because of the buthurtness so many from CnG still whine about.
[/quote]
You're all so sweet to care this much about us here at cng. We're quite capable of making our own decisions though. You don't get to choose when and how to end this war just because you started it.

I feel like we're starting to go out on hyperboles here again. It's really simple. You attacked us to bloody us and are currently losing the war. We want reps for the unprovoked attacks.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='neneko' date='07 March 2010 - 01:05 PM' timestamp='1267985437' post='2216987']
You're all so sweet to care this much about us here at cng. We're quite capable of making our own decisions though. You don't get to choose when and how to end this war just because you started it.

I feel like we're starting to go out on hyperboles here again. It's really simple. You attacked us to bloody us and are currently losing the war. We want reps for the unprovoked attacks.
[/quote]
You guys asking what I would of thought reasonable reps is the only reason I threw rough numbers out there, of course that's for CnG, those fighting alongside you, and those you are fighting against to work out if you guys are interested in peace.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Methrage

[shilo]

[quote name='neneko' date='07 March 2010 - 07:05 PM' timestamp='1267985437' post='2216987']
You're all so sweet to care this much about us here at cng. We're quite capable of making our own decisions though. You don't get to choose when and how to end this war just because you started it.

I feel like we're starting to go out on hyperboles here again. It's really simple. You attacked us to bloody us and are currently losing the war. We want reps for the unprovoked attacks.
[/quote]
I don't care about you guys, I am just wondering when you get over being so butthurt and start acting a bit more rationally. I mean, if you want to keep us in war permanently because you are so pissed at us for attacking you guys, fine, say so.
But if you have any any interest in getting this over with, and on top get tech/money from us, you can come and talk with us about more reasonable terms, and I am sure we will be very open for them.

[Jared]

[quote name='Methrage' date='07 March 2010 - 04:05 PM' timestamp='1267978216' post='2216880']
200k to just CnG without all the rest and I think it would look acceptable in my opinion. However if you consider everything being asked of IRON, TORN, and TSO by you guys separate not likely to be dropped I realize how hopeless this is.
[/quote]
Well ya if we got a offer closer to that then it would be something that could honestly be discussed and considered, at least it wouldn't be a blatant slap in our face like the first counter offer we got.

[Commisar Gaunt]

[quote name='shilo' date='07 March 2010 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1267987996' post='2217016']
I don't care about you guys, I am just wondering when you get over being so butthurt and start acting a bit more rationally. I mean, if you want to keep us in war permanently because you are so pissed at us for attacking you guys, fine, say so.
But if you have any any interest in getting this over with, and on top get tech/money from us, you can come and talk with us about more reasonable terms, and I am sure we will be very open for them.
[/quote]


If you ever wanted reasonable terms, perhaps you should have fought in a reasonable war. That being said, it's been shown that our definitions of reasonable clearly don't match up, in terms of terms OR war. Your no u arguments are just going around in circles at the moment. Nobody on any side is "butthurt", as both sides seem extremely willing to continue fighting.

[shilo]

[quote name='Commisar Gaunt' date='07 March 2010 - 07:59 PM' timestamp='1267988673' post='2217028']
If you ever wanted reasonable terms, perhaps you should have fought in a reasonable war. That being said, it's been shown that our definitions of reasonable clearly don't match up, in terms of terms OR war. Your no u arguments are just going around in circles at the moment. Nobody on any side is "butthurt", as both sides seem extremely willing to continue fighting.
[/quote]
Well, from all the posts coming from CnG members that insist on a moral outrage, thus on punitive reparations, or the idea that it actually were possible to completely pay the damage of this war via reparations, seems to indicate quite a few people actually being butthurt. And until you guys are willing to talk business, and not whine about immorality or expect a full compensation of the damage done in this war, it seems to me that you aren't quite as rationale and cool headed as you say you are (or as you personally may be ).

Edited March 7, 2010 by shilo

[potato]

Since, apparently, you're all so much better at this than we are, how about you make a serious counter-offer of what would be acceptable for both sides and not a piss poor excuse to earn some sort of PR cookie points? The "See C&G is evil? They refused our offer and want to keep us in eternal war" card and ridiculous offer is not really a good idea if you want peace as much you claim...

Edited March 7, 2010 by potato

[shilo]

[quote name='potato' date='07 March 2010 - 08:09 PM' timestamp='1267989251' post='2217037']
Since, apparently, you're all so much better at this than we are, how about you make a serious counter-offer of what would be acceptable for both sides and not a piss poor excuse to earn some sort of PR cookie points? The "See C&G is evil? They refused our offer and want to keep us in eternal war" card and ridiculous offer is not really a good idea if you want peace as much you claim...
[/quote]

We got reps offered that were a piss poor excuse to avoid saying outright you want to keep us in perma-war, thus trying to earn some PR cookie points

Edited March 7, 2010 by shilo

[Haflinger]

[quote name='potato' date='07 March 2010 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1267989251' post='2217037']
Since, apparently, you're all so much better at this than we are, how about you make a serious counter-offer of what would be acceptable for both sides and not a piss poor excuse to earn some sort of PR cookie points? The "See C&G is evil? They refused our offer and want to keep us in eternal war" card and ridiculous offer is not really a good idea if you want peace as much you claim...
[/quote]
They don't really want peace. Neither do you guys. Both sets of you are enjoying yourselves far too much, and frankly, at this point they've got less to gain from a peace agreement than you guys do.

[Commisar Gaunt]

[quote name='shilo' date='07 March 2010 - 02:06 PM' timestamp='1267989070' post='2217033']
Well, from all the posts coming from CnG members that insist on a moral outrage, thus on punitive reparations, or the idea that it actually were possible to completely pay the damage of this war via reparations, seems to indicate quite a few people actually being butthurt. And until you guys are willing to talk business, and not whine about immorality or expect a full compensation of the damage done in this war, it seems to me that you aren't quite as rationale and cool headed as you say you are (or as you personally may be ).
[/quote]


Sadly, by your standards of whining and butthurt, you fall in the same category. It's really unproductive to keep that up. At the end of the day, both sides are just complaining about the reps. Both sides are arguing TOPs entrance into this war. Both sides have some sort of idea that the other side thinks is moronic.


That being said, TOP skipping out on making this war just about treaty obligations by attacking us "preemptively" really takes the prize

[potato]

[quote name='shilo' date='07 March 2010 - 08:13 PM' timestamp='1267989488' post='2217040']
We got reps offered that were a piss poor excuse to avoid saying outright you want to keep us in perma-war, thus trying to earn some PR cookie points
[/quote]

No. The offer we made was deemed fair on our part. You don't agree and want to scream "OMG MK=NPO 2.0!1!!"? Fine. Be my guest: you know me enough to know I won't care. But if you do want to move on, you can either accept it or give us a decent counter-offer.

Edited March 7, 2010 by potato

[potato]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='07 March 2010 - 08:14 PM' timestamp='1267989528' post='2217041']
They don't really want peace. Neither do you guys. Both sets of you are enjoying yourselves far too much, and frankly, at this point they've got less to gain from a peace agreement than you guys do.
[/quote]

Is that so? Then, oh enlightened one, why is TOP and co are whining to get terms and whine more when they are offered some?

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='Commisar Gaunt' date='07 March 2010 - 01:59 PM' timestamp='1267988673' post='2217028']
If you ever wanted reasonable terms, perhaps you should have fought in a reasonable war. That being said, it's been shown that our definitions of reasonable clearly don't match up, in terms of terms OR war. Your no u arguments are just going around in circles at the moment. Nobody on any side is "butthurt", as both sides seem extremely willing to continue fighting.
[/quote]
Or one could 'reasonably' argue the reason both continue to fight is because of the butthurting. One is insulted by the 'outrageous' reps in the sense of being too extensive, whilst the other complains and cries about the insulting manner in which the other portrayed by offering 'too light' of reps.

Oh, and what's better is both cry about the crying, complain about the complaining, and butthurt the butthurting. Then, get this, continues to state how "MY TERMS WERE FAIR." News flash: it adds to the cycle.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Ejayrazz

[shilo]

[quote name='Commisar Gaunt' date='07 March 2010 - 08:15 PM' timestamp='1267989582' post='2217043']
Sadly, by your standards of whining and butthurt, you fall in the same category. It's really unproductive to keep that up. At the end of the day, both sides are just complaining about the reps. Both sides are arguing TOPs entrance into this war. Both sides have some sort of idea that the other side thinks is moronic.


That being said, TOP skipping out on making this war just about treaty obligations by attacking us "preemptively" really takes the prize
[/quote]
Well, that's something you can enjoy for a long time I guess

That said, you do definitely sound way more rationale than most other CnG posters in here, maybe you should be part of the negotiations team

[PrideAssassin]

War of aggression lmao. Always the little victims. I've been hearing you people cry for over a year now. You win a war, and you're STILL here bawwing.
Good show.

[Quinoa Rex]

[quote name='PrideAssassin' date='07 March 2010 - 02:23 PM' timestamp='1267990083' post='2217055']
War of aggression lmao. Always the little victims. I've been hearing you people cry for over a year now. You win a war, and you're STILL here bawwing.
Good show.
[/quote]
Are you denying that you and yours attacked C&G aggressively?

[Jared]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='07 March 2010 - 07:14 PM' timestamp='1267989528' post='2217041']
They don't really want peace. Neither do you guys. Both sets of you are enjoying yourselves far too much, and frankly, at this point they've got less to gain from a peace agreement than you guys do.
[/quote]
Thats true, deep down we do desire more blood for the blood god and skulls for the skull throne or so I hear.

[quote name='PrideAssassin' date='07 March 2010 - 07:23 PM' timestamp='1267990083' post='2217055']
War of aggression lmao. Always the little victims. I've been hearing you people cry for over a year now. You win a war, and you're STILL here bawwing.
Good show.
[/quote]
Don't look at us, the other side is the one crying about how unjust and evil our terms of surrounder are.
What good sports would we be if we didn't whine back, in hindsight we could always leave them to whine amongst themselves, but that wouldn't be much fun now would it?

Edited March 7, 2010 by Jared

[PrideAssassin]

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' date='07 March 2010 - 11:26 AM' timestamp='1267990281' post='2217061']
Are you denying that you and yours attacked C&G aggressively?
[/quote]
Someone who misses the point.
Congratulations.
Are you denying that CnG are not the current aggressors?
Baww some more.

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='Jared' date='07 March 2010 - 02:30 PM' timestamp='1267990486' post='2217068']
Thats true, deep down we do desire more blood for the blood god and skulls for the skull throne or so I hear.


Don't look at us, the other side is the one crying about how unjust and evil our terms of surrounder are.
What good parts would we be if we didn't whine back, in hindsight we could always leave them to whine amongst themselves, but that wouldn't be much fun now would it?
[/quote]
Anything and everything can be perceived as 'whining' these days. Someone disagrees with group a, group a labels group b as a whiner. THEN, get this, group b labels group a as a whiner for whining about whining.

[PrideAssassin]

[quote name='Jared' date='07 March 2010 - 11:30 AM' timestamp='1267990486' post='2217068']
Thats true, deep down we do desire more blood for the blood god and skulls for the skull throne or so I hear.
[/quote]
Funny, I got the "blood for the blood god" line, our war just ended, and he's in peace mode. So much for that.

[quote name='Jared' date='07 March 2010 - 11:30 AM' timestamp='1267990486' post='2217068']
Don't look at us, the other side is the one crying about how unjust and evil our terms of surrounder are.
What good parts would we be if we didn't whine back, in hindsight we could always leave them to whine amongst themselves, but that wouldn't be much fun now would it?
[/quote]
I believe the term your looking for is "hypocrisy". Calling you out on such is far from whining.
"zomg I got hit and I kicked the crap out of them and now they owe me moooonieeeeeeeeez! Wahhhhhhhh!"
Now THAT is some world class whinage.

[Quinoa Rex]

[quote name='PrideAssassin' date='07 March 2010 - 02:30 PM' timestamp='1267990508' post='2217069']
Someone who misses the point.
Congratulations.
Are you denying that CnG are not the current aggressors?
Baww some more.
[/quote]

The aggressor doesn't change halfway through. I've got nothing to baww about; your alliance's members have made lovely practice dummies for the nuclear special forces of my fine nation. You attacked us aggressively, you accept the consequences. We offered you terms and you rejected them, then proceeded to insult us with what you know is a throwaway amount for an alliance your size.

[PrideAssassin]

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' date='07 March 2010 - 11:36 AM' timestamp='1267990894' post='2217080']
The aggressor doesn't change halfway through.
[/quote]
Only it does. The field shifted from aggressive to defensive a long time ago.
To call the current situation an aggressive act on our part is laughable.
So where's NpO's reps for their part in this, eh?
Oh, that's right, you're full of it.
I suppose you need all these bandwagons though. More targets for me. Yay!

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='PrideAssassin' date='07 March 2010 - 02:30 PM' timestamp='1267990508' post='2217069']
Someone who misses the point.
Congratulations.
Are you denying that CnG are not the current aggressors?
Baww some more.
[/quote]

Uhh no, you'd still be the aggressor, what with the preemptive strike and all.

Getting your @#$% kicked still doesn't change who the aggressor is.

I do think the terms you've been offered are rather silly, but not out of some moralistic standard. Terms have to be better than continued war to be appealing to the side taking them, and its clear that at this point you'd far rather keep nuking the daylights out of each other. You folks will turn down anything but a token sum at this point, even though its clear you've been defeated nuclear wars are pretty mutually destructive and at this point you'd rather continue the destruction than pay large sums of tech.

[Earogema]

[quote name='PrideAssassin' date='07 March 2010 - 01:33 PM' timestamp='1267990698' post='2217077']
I believe the term your looking for is "hypocrisy". Calling you out on such is far from whining.
"zomg I got hit and I kicked the crap out of them and now they owe me moooonieeeeeeeeez! Wahhhhhhhh!"
Now THAT is some world class whinage.
[/quote]
It's more like

You kicked first- broke a nose.
He beat the !@#$ out of you to force you to pay.
You're still not going to pay.

You can keep claiming you aren't the aggressor because now you're losing and terms aren't in your favor, but that didn't help NPO back during Karma and that line isn't going to work now.

[Quinoa Rex]

[quote name='PrideAssassin' date='07 March 2010 - 02:43 PM' timestamp='1267991291' post='2217089']
Only it does. The field shifted from aggressive to defensive a long time ago.
To call the current situation an aggressive act on our part is laughable.
So where's NpO's reps for their part in this, eh?
Oh, that's right, you're full of it.
I suppose you need all these bandwagons though. More targets for me. Yay!
[/quote]

So if someone punches me and a few of my closest friends in the face and steals our wallets because they've got some crazy notion in their heads that I was about to do it to them anyway, and I proceed to beat them within an inch of their life and try to take my wallet back, I'm in the wrong? If you weren't prepared to deal with a potential loss, you shouldn't have pre-empted us.

NpO reparations are NpO's choice. They are not pursuing them, so I don't see what you're getting at there.