Joint Statement

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Hyperion321' date='18 February 2010 - 11:59 PM' timestamp='1266555599' post='2191521']
I'm just keeping this thread open to see if any TOPpers will eventually respond to [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81101&view=findpost&p=2191322]610[/url]. I've seen five of them come in and out of here, start a response, then leave.
[/quote]

Haha well I can't speak to that point.

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Choader' date='19 February 2010 - 12:00 AM' timestamp='1266555649' post='2191528']
Please.
[/quote]

You realize your bolding conveys the exact same point as [quote]What's there to respond to? You claimed you were defending your treaty obligations to assist in the Polar-\m/ war. With that kind of remark you're obviously a less then sane lunatic and any response would be a fruitless waste of time.[/quote]. To which I again agree with you, and repeat [quote]I suppose you're right, if you are not intellectually honest enough to accept there was a connection to the Polar-\m/ war we really do not have anything to talk about.[/quote]

[Whitney]

[quote name='Nizzle' date='18 February 2010 - 07:48 AM' timestamp='1266508116' post='2189693']
For a member of an alliance who belongs to the "friends > infra" group, this is quite hilarious to see.
[/quote]

Friends don't let friends declare aggressive wars without a CB.

[Choader]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='18 February 2010 - 09:05 PM' timestamp='1266555926' post='2191539']
You realize your bolding conveys the exact same point as . To which I again agree with you, and repeat
[/quote]
You really don't get it? I thought you were just playing dense.

Okay, please explain how you were honoring treaty obligations by declaring on C&G. Keep in mind that this is a claim [i]no one[/i] in your little posse has tried to pass off so far. The absurdity of such a statement is striking.

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Choader' date='19 February 2010 - 12:09 AM' timestamp='1266556170' post='2191547']
You really don't get it? I thought you were just playing dense.

Okay, please explain how you were honoring treaty obligations by declaring on C&G. Keep in mind that this is a claim [i]no one[/i] in your little posse has tried to pass off so far. The absurdity of such a statement is striking.
[/quote]

I really dont feel like repeating an argument which has be going for over 10 pages. Let me try a quick summary though. Our treaty obligations put us on NpO's side because of IRON-NSO, which then goes to IRON-the rest of Duckroll-TOP-DAWN. Instead of directly coming to NSO's defense, we, as part of the coalition, believed that militarily it was necessary to hit CnG, a block which would be entering on the other side, in order to win the war. So instead of directly coming to the aid of NSO, we believed it was vital to come to NSO's aid indirectly to the advantage of the entire coalition, including NSO. Ultimately the purpose was to win the war, we were "defending" NSO's interests by working for the successful conclusion of NpO-\m/ war. We felt that ultimately this action, combined with the other coalition deployments which would follow, would take the heat off NSO, thus providing for their "defense".

[Choader]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='18 February 2010 - 09:25 PM' timestamp='1266557102' post='2191581']
I really dont feel like repeating an argument which has be going for over 10 pages. Let me try a quick summary though. Our treaty obligations put us on NpO's side because of IRON-NSO, which then goes to IRON-the rest of Duckroll-TOP-DAWN. Instead of directly coming to NSO's defense, we, as part of the coalition, believed that militarily it was necessary to hit CnG, a block which would be entering on the other side, in order to win the war. So instead of directly coming to the aid of NSO, we believed it was vital to come to NSO's aid indirectly to the advantage of the entire coalition, including NSO. Ultimately the purpose was to win the war, we were "defending" NSO's interests by working for the successful conclusion of NpO-\m/ war. We felt that ultimately this action, combined with the other coalition deployments which would follow, would take the heat off NSO, thus providing for their "defense".
[/quote]
You're amazing.

[Homura]

[quote name='Choader' date='19 February 2010 - 05:09 AM' timestamp='1266556170' post='2191547']
You really don't get it? I thought you were just playing dense.

Okay, please explain how you were honoring treaty obligations by declaring on C&G. Keep in mind that this is a claim [i]no one[/i] in your little posse has tried to pass off so far. The absurdity of such a statement is striking.
[/quote]
Unbeknownst to most, there is a secret archaic passage in TOP's most ancient treaties stating "when the beast shall rise from the sea, strike off the head of the tiger, and silence their complaints and their grievances". The meaning of this cryptic phrase has been debated for centuries, but now TOP has acted in accordance with the prophecy. The truth is out there.

[Ryuzaki]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='19 February 2010 - 05:25 PM' timestamp='1266557102' post='2191581']
I really dont feel like repeating an argument which has be going for over 10 pages. Let me try a quick summary though. Our treaty obligations put us on NpO's side because of IRON-NSO, which then goes to IRON-the rest of Duckroll-TOP-DAWN. Instead of directly coming to NSO's defense, we, as part of the coalition, believed that militarily it was necessary to hit CnG, a block which would be entering on the other side, in order to win the war. So instead of directly coming to the aid of NSO, we believed it was vital to come to NSO's aid indirectly to the advantage of the entire coalition, including NSO. Ultimately the purpose was to win the war, we were "defending" NSO's interests by working for the successful conclusion of NpO-\m/ war. We felt that ultimately this action, combined with the other coalition deployments which would follow, would take the heat off NSO, thus providing for their "defense".
[/quote]

And what made you think that doing this would lead to the end of the NpO-\m/ war?

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Choader' date='18 February 2010 - 11:47 PM' timestamp='1266554825' post='2191477']
What's there to respond to? You claimed you were defending your treaty obligations to assist in the Polar-\m/ war. With that kind of remark you're obviously a less then sane lunatic and any response would be a fruitless waste of time.
[/quote]

This man has the right of it #603 is simply pure drivel, no one has bothered to respond because there is nothing worth addressing. Arguing with a panda about his favorite brand of cappuccino would be a more constructive use of ones time.

[Krack]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='18 February 2010 - 11:25 PM' timestamp='1266557102' post='2191581']
I really dont feel like repeating an argument which has be going for over 10 pages. Let me try a quick summary though. Our treaty obligations put us on NpO's side because of IRON-NSO, which then goes to IRON-the rest of Duckroll-TOP-DAWN. Instead of directly coming to NSO's defense, we, as part of the coalition, believed that militarily it was necessary to hit CnG, a block which would be entering on the other side, in order to win the war. So instead of directly coming to the aid of NSO, we believed it was vital to come to NSO's aid indirectly to the advantage of the entire coalition, including NSO. Ultimately the purpose was to win the war, we were "defending" NSO's interests by working for the successful conclusion of NpO-\m/ war. We felt that ultimately this action, combined with the other coalition deployments which would follow, would take the heat off NSO, thus providing for their "defense".
[/quote]

Your analysis disregards that you could have stayed out of the war altogether. It further disregards that if you did not participate in the war (more specifically, if you did not attack C&G or any of their defense pact treatied partners), you wouldn't be attacked by C&G.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Krack

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Ryuzaki' date='19 February 2010 - 12:33 AM' timestamp='1266557581' post='2191591']
And what made you think that doing this would lead to the end of the NpO-\m/ war?
[/quote]

We didn't think it would necessarily bring the end. In fact, as has been mentioned a number of times, we were all taken completely by surprise by NpO's peace with \m/ a half an hour after our declaration, the coalition thought this was going to be long and tough fight. I will say we felt that preemption gave us the best odds of success. We knew looking at the numbers that the war was going to be very close, and that we had a slight disadvantage. Suffice it to say CnG was one of the centers of gravity for the other side, and if we could put its feet to the fire that would put some pressure on \m/.

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Krack' date='19 February 2010 - 12:43 AM' timestamp='1266558217' post='2191604']
Your analysis disregards that you could have stayed out of the war altogether. It further disregards that if you did not participate in the war (more specifically, if you did not attack C&G or any of their defense pact treatied partners), you wouldn't be attacked by C&G.
[/quote]

I mean yes every alliance has options. By that thinking CnG could have come to the defense of NpO or FOK. I'm trying to base my analysis in the reality of the situation. Never was IRON going to let its allies get rolled. Never was TORN going to leave IRON out to dry. Obviously we could have stayed out of the fight, obviously NpO could have ignored \m/'s raiding, they didn't. The reality of the matter is IRON was always going to be on NpO's side and CnG was without a question going to be on the other side. Someone from our coalition would have attacked CnG's treaty partners, after all SirWilliam famously stated that they are allied to half the game, it is difficult to avoid this reality. The point is this if not us, someone else, which would have been to the determent of the coalition effort.

Your analysis doesn't acknowledge the reality of the situation on the ground. The options you present require us to roll over and accept NpO's and therefore NSO's defeat. It was not going to happen. Just like CnG was not going to leave allies hanging, that is simply not what they do.

[DougZ37]

[quote name='joracy' date='19 February 2010 - 03:58 AM' timestamp='1266548326' post='2191076']
Well, I see that. Do you think there is a contradiction from signing a document designed to encourage alliances to peace out one by one, and arguing against us for having alliances peace out one by one, to create this divide and conquer technique?
[/quote]
I think you miss the point here. What Saber is criticizing is the tactic of offering fringe alliances white peace for the purpose of focusing on specific alliances, with the intent of creating an overwhelming enough force to ensure that the alliance has no option but to accept draconian reparations. This is contrasted with a blanket white peace and extremely public pledge not to demand any terms.

Technically in both cases there is a 'divide and conquer' at work if you want to look at it that way - but the difference is in the end - one seeks to divide and conquer for the purpose of exerting their will over certain alliances / ensure draconian reps, while the other merely seeks de-escalation, not for the purpose of winning reps, but merely achieving a cessation of hostilities. I think thats a relevant difference, even if certain parallels could be drawn.

[Pingu]

Is 'draconian reps' equivalent to 'paying for the damage you inflicted willfully and without reasonable cause'? I merely ask for clarification. Naturally the side 'merely' seeking de-escalation is not seeking reps, since they are both in the wrong and losing the war they started. But you know that.

[Yggdrazil]

To many of C&G supporters have drunk the mushroom laced Kool-AID.
Repeat something often enough, drown the opposition reasoned discourse with counters that becomes Meme and the truth will be lost in the deluge of threads. A public relations coup used well bringing the hegemony down, now substandard rhetoric.
Had TOP and IRON entered conventionally instead of preemptively, the words would change but the methodology would not.

[Dr hairy Ballz]

[quote name='F15pilotX' date='18 February 2010 - 01:26 AM' timestamp='1266477981' post='2189180']
Well this isn't going to be a trollfest at all.
[/quote]


I lol'd at your post sir.





Ahhh, in regards to OP; I dunno bout all this white peace. People have lost a lot and are going to want something out of the deal, I'm not saying, I'm just saying.

[James I]

[quote name='Yggdrazil' date='19 February 2010 - 08:24 AM' timestamp='1266567895' post='2191788']
To many of C&G supporters have drunk the mushroom laced Kool-AID.
Repeat something often enough, drown the opposition reasoned discourse with counters that becomes Meme and the truth will be lost in the deluge of threads. A public relations coup used well bringing the hegemony down, now substandard rhetoric.
Had TOP and IRON entered conventionally instead of preemptively, the words would change but the methodology would not.
[/quote]
Repetition of valid arguments does not make them false. Just as repetition of invalid arguments does not make those arguments true. This goes for [i]both[/i] sides. To imply that the side of the war that you are on is the only one engaging in reasoned debate is frankly quite silly.

[Krack]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='19 February 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1266559606' post='2191670']
Your analysis doesn't acknowledge the reality of the situation on the ground. The options you present require us to roll over and accept NpO's and therefore NSO's defeat. It was not going to happen. Just like CnG was not going to leave allies hanging, that is simply not what they do.
[/quote]

You know what my analysis [i]does[/i] acknowledge? That your side of the war has less NS, Score, nations, and nukes. How's that for "reality of the situation on the ground"? Here's some [u]more[/u] acknowledgment of reality ... every day this war continues, your side gets weaker (compared to its opponents). And here's the coup de gras of reality acknowledgment: If TOP ever reaches the point where its warchests are empty (and its rapidly approaching), your side might as well pack it in as far as considering yourselves influential global powers; without their tech, your bloc is impotent.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Krack

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Krack' date='19 February 2010 - 05:23 AM' timestamp='1266575015' post='2191834']
You know what my analysis [i]does[/i] acknowledge? That your side of the war has less NS, Score, nations, and nukes. How's that for "reality of the situation on the ground"? Here's some [u]more[/u] acknowledgment of reality ... every day this war continues, your side gets weaker (compared to its opponents). And here's the coup de gras of reality acknowledgment: If TOP ever reaches the point where its warchests are empty (and its rapidly approaching), your side might as well pack it in as far as considering yourselves influential global powers; without their tech, your bloc is impotent.
[/quote]

As so my argument cannot be valid because you believe us to be losing! I'm so glad you are at least acknowledging that you think might makes right. I think I understand the equation now, the "correctness of my argument is directly proportional to the amount of NS my side has"!

Edit: for increased wittiness

Edited February 19, 2010 by Lord Curzon

[Krack]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='19 February 2010 - 04:33 AM' timestamp='1266575584' post='2191837']
As so my argument cannot be valid because you believe us to be losing!
[/quote]

No, your argument cannot be valid because [i]you didn't make one[/i]. You asked people, several times, to refute it; yet, there was nothing there to refute. You have to make a point before I can say, "I disagree with your point, here's why." The only thing you said, that resembled an argument, was that IRON had to attack. You're wrong, they didn't. Ta-da! Your argument has been refuted.

[quote]I'm so glad you are at least acknowledging that you think might makes right. I think I understand the equation now, the "correctness of my argument is directly proportional to the amount of NS my side has"![/quote]

Nope, I'm acknowledging that the only thing you stated (that IRON had to attack) is wrong. I'm further acknowledging that your (plural, meaning your entire side) constant whining is not improving your position or ability to negotiate terms. I also acknowledge that your negotiating power becomes less hourly. However, even if your side was beating the crap out of its opponents and firmly in control of the war, you'd still be wrong; and I acknowledge this as well.

[quote]Edit: for increased wittiness[/quote]

If this counts for "witty", I'd hate to see how unwitty the original was.

[JoshuaR]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='18 February 2010 - 09:10 PM' timestamp='1266545435' post='2190944']
Also as I said in an earlier post, pre-emptive strikes are okay if you have solid evidence that your opponent was going to attack you.
[/quote]
Johnny, Johnny, wouldn't you say that they had plenty of solid evidence that C&G would attack them?

Ponder this: If I wished to attack any one member of C&G (in defense of another ally), then I would expect all other members of C&G to come to the first member's defense and then attack me. I then KNOW that all of C&G will attack me. At this point, I have solid evidence, garnered through simple logic, that I will be at war with all of C&G. Armed with this knowledge, I can safely declare war on all of these alliances, assured that this gives me the greatest tactical advantage possible in a war of this magnitude and with my nation strength and cash reserves.

(Please note that while this may have been a tactical act of brilliancy, it was a strategical blunder. I do not advocate this method of warfare. Even though I suggested to PC that they had every right to ask for assistance of allies in a "defensive war" against Polar in the beginning simply because Polar planned on attacking them through a shrewd means of manipulating the letter of the law (treaty) even while asking PC's allies to violate the spirit of it...

But back to TOP. In this day in age, when only Starcraftmazter feels free to declare war on alliances simply for being on the other side of a coalition - and not through direct treaties -, TOP allowed not just the C&G union and any other direct allies of some possible "individual" target to respond, but allowed all of C&G and ALL of the individual alliances' allies within C&G to have a direct, letter-of-the law rationale for attacking TOP. So yes, although the brilliant stat collectors figured they'd gain the upper hand in a war that WAS INDEED SURE TO COME ABOUT, they did make a simple strategic mistake in allowing C&G+allies to respond instead of just target+allies.)

And then we also have the interesting added layer of complexity, the fact that C&G, indeed desiring the destruction of TOP, used this war declaration as propaganda and fuel in being able to call this a "new" war, one in which they could call the shots rather than Polar or \m/.

TOP should have seen that coming too, especially if they were indeed paranoid about a scenario just like this one.
---

So now we have this giant war. We have the propaganda flowing. One side (SuperGrievances we shall call them,or SG for short) offering white peace to individual alliances in order to strengthen their grips around the necks of those alliances remaining on the Stat Collector side of things. And here in this thread we have the Grub Not Grub (GNG) side offering the very same deal to alliances on the SG side. Whereas one is hailed as merciful, the other is derided. An interesting tactic in the war of propaganda. I tip my hat to SG, as it seems that that war (the war of propaganda) is also leaning your way.

But what about the final outcome of this war?

SG want to hurt TOP and Co, just as they have recently hurt Pacifica. Perhaps they really do think they were wronged. TOP and Co believe themselves to have been links in an earlier chain of events, with no choice but to be pulled ahead by the ring(s) of metal before them. And maybe they did think this would be a good chance to reduce the future threat, imagined or not. What of it? They still entered into the war because of those links of chain, it would have happened anyway.

My opinion, just the small tiny opinion of one lone nation ruler, one lone nineteen-nation alliance leader, is that I am glad I am not part of any of this machine. And yet somehow, for some reason, I am drawn toward it, a voyeur, wondering whether the talking heads really believe what they say (I doubt it, but who cares, it's what I'd do in their place. It's a war of propaganda!), and wondering still if the lesser pawns believe what they think the officers believe (I sure hope they at least put some thought into the matter and form their own opinions, whatever those opinions may be).

Oh right, the opinion. Meh, ask yourself why you are fighting, what it is exactly that you perceive to be the wrong. Then ask yourself how you can prevent that wrong from occurring in the future.

If you believe the other side wants you dead, then maybe you should destroy it after all.

If you believe the other side is fighting without heart, but only to fight allies of allies of allies of allies, then maybe you should lend them your own hearts.

If you don't actually believe in the propaganda of your side, then maybe you should lobby for peace.

Finally, if you believe the other side really did constitute a threat to yourself, ask,

well be that as it may, how do I want this world to look when I am done with it?

Be the change you want to see in the world. And make it as you may.

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='Pingu' date='19 February 2010 - 02:16 AM' timestamp='1266567391' post='2191780']
Is 'draconian reps' equivalent to 'paying for the damage you inflicted willfully and without reasonable cause'? I merely ask for clarification. Naturally the side 'merely' seeking de-escalation is not seeking reps, since they are both in the wrong and losing the war they started. But you know that.
[/quote]

it's wrong to support allies? hmmm. anyways, they didnt say they wouldnt pay for reps, they said they were making the first step in saying this is the offer, now counter offer. simple.

[quote name='Krack' date='19 February 2010 - 04:23 AM' timestamp='1266575015' post='2191834']
You know what my analysis [i]does[/i] acknowledge? That your side of the war has less NS, Score, nations, and nukes. How's that for "reality of the situation on the ground"? Here's some [u]more[/u] acknowledgment of reality ... every day this war continues, your side gets weaker (compared to its opponents). And here's the coup de gras of reality acknowledgment: If TOP ever reaches the point where its warchests are empty (and its rapidly approaching), your side might as well pack it in as far as considering yourselves influential global powers; without their tech, your bloc is impotent.
[/quote]

so that's what this is all about? it has nothing to do with you simply defending yourself, you want to completely destroy a bloc. yet, all this time you guys were denying it. i guess this is "justice" in your book, eh?

[potato]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='19 February 2010 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1266583711' post='2191921']
so that's what this is all about? it has nothing to do with you simply defending yourself, you want to completely destroy a bloc. yet, all this time you guys were denying it. i guess this is "justice" in your book, eh?
[/quote]

Even if you're completely avoiding what Krack is saying and not even answering his post, allow me ask you that: what bloc are we supposedly trying to destroy? Citadel? You can thank the power-grabbing nutjobs on your side for that one...

[Homura]

[quote name='Yggdrazil' date='19 February 2010 - 08:24 AM' timestamp='1266567895' post='2191788']
To many of C&G supporters have drunk the mushroom laced Kool-AID.
Repeat something often enough, drown the opposition reasoned discourse with counters that becomes Meme and the truth will be lost in the deluge of threads. A public relations coup used well bringing the hegemony down, now substandard rhetoric.
Had TOP and IRON entered conventionally instead of preemptively, the words would change but the methodology would not.
[/quote]
[img]http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/6931/koolaidq.jpg[/img]

I'm not a C&G supporter any more than I am a TOP supporter, and this is not reasoned discourse. This is a proposal for an unworkable collective escape that is nothing more than ludicrous.

[Saber]

[quote name='Hyperion321' date='19 February 2010 - 05:06 AM' timestamp='1266552388' post='2191322']
Obviously it's been debated out here more than inside of TOP. I still can't believe you let Crym get away with going against Heptagon and authorizing the pre-emptive strike himself without their consent.
[/quote]
Avernite our Grandmaster is from Netherlands and I am from Croatia. Both of us were away when you posted this and it's only reason you did not get a response so far.

First of all, what Crymson did and what Heptagon voted upon and whether he abused his position is a TOP internal affair. TOP as sovereign alliance does not allow external parties to interfere in our internal affairs. Personally I do not believe Crymson abused Heptagon vote but rather that it was a case of Heptagon trusting the government not to engage in attack of this sort. There can be few interpretations, one which says everything is legal and one which says Crymson abused his position. In any case it is up to our internal bodies to determine this, and really not your concern.

Given that Crymson is not government member any more I do not believe this is an important point.

Oh, and it was debated heavily on TOP forums. Anyone who knows us knows that we have great debates and discussions on pretty minor points, one such as this won't get passed over.
[quote name='Myworld' date='19 February 2010 - 05:35 AM' timestamp='1266554120' post='2191417']
* Boards Alliance Of Protectorate States
* Death Before Dishonor
* Democratic Alliance of Wise Nations
* DOOM
[s] * Echelon[/s]
* Fellowship Of Elite Allied Republics
[s] * Global Democratic Alliance[/s]
* Global United Nations
[s] * ICB[/s]
* Independent Republic Of Orange Nations
* Invicta
* Menotah
* Molon Labe
* NATO
[s] * North Atlantic Defense Coalition[/s]
* Old Guard
* Olympus
* OMFG
* SNAFU
* The Foreign Division
* The Legion
* The Order of Light
* The Order of Righteous Nations
* The Order Of The Paradox
* The Phoenix Federation
* The Sweet Oblivion
[s] * United Blue Directorate[/s]
[s] * United Commonwealth Of Nations[/s]
[s] * United Sovereign Nations[/s]
* Valhalla
* Veritas Aequitas
* Zenith

This is getting to be a very small list. Who's next to get off the battlefield and seek peace?[/quote]
I can tell you who will be the last one off.

The Order of the Paradox. We won't leave before everyone on our side gets peace.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Saber