Accepting the Consequenses of War

[rsoxbronco1]

I hate the black sphere.

[Vladimir Stukov II]

[quote name='rsoxbronco1' date='17 March 2010 - 09:50 PM' timestamp='1268859371' post='2228522']
I hate the black sphere.
[/quote]

[img]http://open.salon.com/blog/behind_blue_eyes/2008/10/24/files/thatsracistgm751224856460.gif[/img]

[der_ko]

[quote name='Drai' date='17 March 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1268858497' post='2228510']
Have fun taking idle threats seriously enough to declare on a bloc.
[/quote]
You know, we could always use TOPs argument to launch future offensive wars. Nobody better look at us funny. We'll consider it a direct threat to our security and will of course defend ourselves from anyone malevolent enough to smear the Kingdoms good name.

This CB is TOP approved and thus I do not expect them to raise any objections.

[Tigerdonia Redux]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='17 March 2010 - 04:06 PM' timestamp='1268856693' post='2228480']
You do realize he just compared us to the KKK, right?

You lose all privileges to respect when you do something like that.

Also, inb4 godwin law.
[/quote]

Yes I realize that, I directed my "rolleyes" at teddyyo, not you guys.

Also, Hitler.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Tigerdonia Redux

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Omas Nams' date='18 March 2010 - 04:07 AM' timestamp='1268849597' post='2228380']
Yea it's so nice having awesome allies/friends like TOP who don't attack your other friends...oh no wait.
[/quote]
That's hilarious coming from a member of Gre, seeing that's exactly what you $%&@ers did to TOP in the Karma war.

[Fate]

Perhaps I wasn't clear the first time. This topic is not about the KKK, it is not about racism, and I don't see the relevance to the black sphere. Any future comments along those lines will be met with full warns for derailment.

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='der_ko' date='17 March 2010 - 03:54 PM' timestamp='1268859568' post='2228527']
You know, we could always use TOPs argument to launch future offensive wars. Nobody better look at us funny. We'll consider it a direct threat to our security and will of course defend ourselves from anyone malevolent enough to smear the Kingdoms good name.

This CB is TOP approved and thus I do not expect them to raise any objections.
[/quote]

but that'd make you a hypocrite.

that was a bad analogy a couple pages back but i dont see how he was directly suggesting CnG leaders are anything like that org. what i read is that if you keep poking the someone, eventually that person is probably going to do more than poke you back.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[quote name='der_ko' date='17 March 2010 - 04:54 PM' timestamp='1268859568' post='2228527']
You know, we could always use TOPs argument to launch future offensive wars. Nobody better look at us funny. We'll consider it a direct threat to our security and will of course defend ourselves from anyone malevolent enough to smear the Kingdoms good name.

This CB is TOP approved and thus I do not expect them to raise any objections.
[/quote]
As I made it quite clear in my initial posts regarding that (and I was the one who made that argument), nuances and degrees exist. Like I said, if only a handful of members start making threats, one should preferably seek diplomatic venues first. If the threats persist and are becoming a norm or a lot of their members are making them, I'd say it's ground to start worrying and preparing military plans. Especially when the concerned government excuses all posts as "merely opinions" and do nothing about them.

People should stop with this "oh, what's next, we won't be able to voice our opinions without getting warred". It is nonsense. This forum - moreso the IC parts - serve as the main outlet for foreign affairs on this game (a nation building political simulator). It is normal and sane that wars are waged over what is said here. We're (mostly, save for the anime gang I guess) role-playing the leaders of our nations. If I go around saying - in IC parts - that X or Y alliance/nation should be destroyed, I do expect their rulers to take that seriously and to react. If you want complete freedom of speech (within the TOS) without any repercussion, stick to OOC parts.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='der_ko' date='17 March 2010 - 03:54 PM' timestamp='1268859568' post='2228527']
You know, we could always use TOPs argument to launch future offensive wars. Nobody better look at us funny. We'll consider it a direct threat to our security and will of course defend ourselves from anyone malevolent enough to smear the Kingdoms good name.

This CB is TOP approved and thus I do not expect them to raise any objections.
[/quote]
Its especially funny that it wasn't our CB...its what your talking points claim it is.

But sure, try it sometime.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='18 March 2010 - 03:12 PM' timestamp='1268925438' post='2229294']
Its especially funny that it wasn't our CB...its what your talking points claim it is.

But sure, try it sometime.
[/quote]

Correct, it wasn't your CB. It was TOP's CB

[Omas Nams]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='17 March 2010 - 08:59 PM' timestamp='1268859893' post='2228534']
That's hilarious coming from a member of Gre, seeing that's exactly what you $%&@ers did to TOP in the Karma war.
[/quote]

As much as I hate to respond to this as it's gonna come back and bite me in the arse I'm sure but, the situations are fairly similar and yet quite different. My post was poorly worded but it was meant to point out the fact that Vlad tried to paint us as bad 'allies' for apparently planning on hitting IRON in a defensive war when it is a.) TOP who brought about this war and so caused us to 'make a decision' and b.) TOP who offensively declared on one of our closest friends, if you can't see the hypocrisy there then you need to visit an optician. I'll admit that the Karma situation and how it went down was not one of our finer moments but even so the point still stands.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Omas Nams' date='19 March 2010 - 02:59 AM' timestamp='1268931870' post='2229366']
As much as I hate to respond to this as it's gonna come back and bite me in the arse I'm sure but, the situations are fairly similar and yet quite different. My post was poorly worded but it was meant to point out the fact that Vlad tried to paint us as bad 'allies' for apparently planning on hitting IRON in a defensive war when it is a.) TOP who brought about this war and so caused us to 'make a decision' and b.) TOP who offensively declared on one of our closest friends, if you can't see the hypocrisy there then you need to visit an optician. I'll admit that the Karma situation and how it went down was not one of our finer moments but even so the point still stands.
[/quote]
Oh sure, I agree TOP $%&@ed up by declaring war on allies of their allies without relying on mutual defence treaties (or any treaties at all, really). My point was more about the sheer hypocrisy of your post i.e. pot, kettle, black etc.

[Omas Nams]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='18 March 2010 - 10:33 PM' timestamp='1268951599' post='2229604']
Oh sure, I agree TOP $%&@ed up by declaring war on allies of their allies without relying on mutual defence treaties (or any treaties at all, really). My point was more about the sheer hypocrisy of your post i.e. pot, kettle, black etc.
[/quote]

Oh I agree that it was poorly worded, and a bit hypocritical, but the point still stands. And personally I don't what we did was *as* bad as what TOP has done but that's down to your own personal view.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Omas Nams' date='19 March 2010 - 01:28 PM' timestamp='1269023321' post='2230421']
Oh I agree that it was poorly worded, and a bit hypocritical, but the point still stands. And personally I don't what we did was *as* bad as what TOP has done but that's down to [u]your own personal view.[/u]
[/quote]
Underlined the important part. Glad we can agree.

[Steve Buscemi]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='19 March 2010 - 02:34 PM' timestamp='1269027224' post='2230462']
Underlined the important part. Glad we can agree.
[/quote]
You know, what was strange is TOP was waaaaay closer to Gra than IRON. In fact, I really never saw much activity out of IRON when I was active in TOP. I always got the impression that NPO/IRON really hated us for leaving Q and would haven't defended us if TOP had gotten rolled. So it was stupid when we decided to really jump in bed with IRON after Karma. I'm going to chaulk it up as a behind-closed-doors gov. to gov decision which basically ignored the general attitude of the general assembly. It was also during this time that the GA started to demand greater transparency from our then gov. Kiss Goodbye (GC/MoFA) doing a great job in that regard (too bad he's gone).

I think that TOP would still be right at NPO's side if TOP's Gov. thought that NPO would've been on the winning side during the Karma war. I think this is why we didn't cancel on NPO until much much later. Bandwagon'ing FTL. Here's to hoping none of TOP's old guard, NPO/IRON loyalists are ever voted into office again.

But back on topic, TOP has no right to be upset at Gra. TOP, you started this war and forced their hand and your buddies at NPO started the last great war. Can you just stop bawwwing and take it like adults?

[Shoofly]

I voted keep fighting a-la old school FAN.

[img]http://www.cg.reloadpress.com/upload/3733-av-8984.jpg[/img]

When faced with 2 bleak alternatives, choose the more fun option.

[ajaxpenny]

I'm pretty sure we agreed there was something wrong with our CB and how it was expressed. If there wasn't, we wouldn't agree to pay reps even if we were being run into the ground.

But the fact that we messed up but still chose CnG as our target showcases that mistakes on both sides were made. Miscommunication can only occur with both parties committing errors of judgment and perception. For CnG to act as if they were the golden boys in this whole episode is wrong. If TOP was massively culpable for igniting this conflict, CnG was [i]at least moderately[/i] culpable.

The question is not whether TOP is willing to pay reps but the number of reps we're willing to pay. We recognize a mistake when it is made but it is the severity of the mistake in question which determines the amount of reps payable.

CnG has to recognize that lowering their reps expectations and concluding this conflict is in our mutual interests. The amounts of reps we're willing to pay through negotiation will never increase enough by day to offset the damage done to CnG through nuclear warfare. If this was a zero-sum affair, where CnG and TIDTT were the only parties on Planet Bob, then a continuation of this conflict would be in CnG interests. But considering the numerous other entities out there, including parties that could potentially become hostile to CnG in the future (We know how CN politics works, your friend one day can become the enemy the next and vice versa), it's in CnG's interests to offer or accept a deal plainly acceptable to us ASAP. And we all know, contrary to how issues are portrayed on the OWF, that CnG is not beloved by everyone, no matter what they may wish. No alliance or party can subscribe to such a position.

Edited March 25, 2010 by ajaxpenny

[Ryuzaki]

[quote name='ajaxpenny' date='25 March 2010 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1269489637' post='2236071']
I'm pretty sure we agreed there was something wrong with our CB and how it was expressed. If there wasn't, we wouldn't agree to pay reps even if we were being run into the ground.

But the fact that we messed up but still chose CnG as our target showcases that mistakes on both sides were made. Miscommunication can only occur with both parties committing errors of judgment and perception. For CnG to act as if they were the golden boys in this whole episode is wrong. If TOP was massively culpable for igniting this conflict, CnG was [i]at least moderately[/i] culpable.
[/quote]

How is C&G "at least moderately culpable?"

[SirWilliam]

[quote name='Ryuzaki' date='25 March 2010 - 01:11 AM' timestamp='1269493897' post='2236158']How is C&G "at least moderately culpable?"[/quote]
I assume he's going with the party line that C&G continued and escalated the present conflict by not agreeing to white peace after being preempted, in which case I'd go with the party line that aggressively striking an uninvolved party amidst global war has its consequences.


[quote name='ajaxpenny' date='25 March 2010 - 12:00 AM' timestamp='1269489637' post='2236071']CnG has to recognize that lowering their reps expectations and concluding this conflict is in our mutual interests.[/quote]
C&G [i]has[/i] lowered its expectations (in fact, our latest offer was one informally suggested by TOP leadership).

If maintaining that an end to conflict is in our mutual interests then realistically any adjustment of expectations, especially given the circumstances, would need to come from [i]both[/i] sides (and I believe has).

[Ryuzaki]

[quote name='SirWilliam' date='25 March 2010 - 06:16 PM' timestamp='1269497775' post='2236204']
I assume he's going with the party line that C&G continued and escalated the present conflict by not agreeing to white peace after being preempted, in which case I'd go with the party line that aggressively striking an uninvolved party amidst global war has its consequences.
[/quote]

If that is the reason he said that then he is wrong. That line of reasoning may work if you are talking about the continuation of the conflict but saying we are responsible for igniting (starting) it is just plain stupid.

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Ryuzaki' date='25 March 2010 - 02:19 AM' timestamp='1269497969' post='2236207']
If that is the reason he said that then he is wrong. That line of reasoning may work if you are talking about the continuation of the conflict but saying we are responsible for igniting (starting) it is just plain stupid.
[/quote]
But CnG was mean to people on the forum! Mean with their [u]words[/u]! What more reason for a war could you possibly want?

[Voytek]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' date='26 March 2010 - 10:36 PM' timestamp='1269603358' post='2237246']
But CnG was mean to people on the forum! Mean with their [u]words[/u]! What more reason for a war could you possibly want?
[/quote]
It's all our fault... we behaved provocatively and wore revealing outfits knowing full well that their paranoia and lack of self-control would literally force them to attack us.

[shilo]

Well, you could consider it a compliment to you all. What you say on the forum is being taken serious, we do listen to you guys

[Cataduanes]

[quote name='Voytek' date='26 March 2010 - 12:07 PM' timestamp='1269605239' post='2237260']
wore revealing outfits
[/quote]
You mean like ill fitting robes? or nothing but a thong??

[shilo]

[quote name='Cataduanes' date='26 March 2010 - 03:57 PM' timestamp='1269615403' post='2237352']
You mean like ill fitting robes? or nothing but a thong??
[/quote]
/me accidently imagines a Cata only in that outfit


Yes, it's your fault