A call to those betrayed by Polaris

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='foxfire99' timestamp='1296890901' post='2620237']
You make the assumption that C&G would have lost the war if Polar hadn't sold out TOP, which I'm not sure is completely true, but that situation is rather closed to experimentation, so I won't argue that. And saying "You should never have trusted them in the first place" is unlikely to make TOP feel any better about the situation.

And for the love of Admin, please look up and learn some basic spelling and grammar rules.
[/quote]

won't touch the first paragraph really.

ooc: as for spelling and grammar- do you really think i care enough to write like i am handing in a paper in college? seriously? on CN i write how i speak. in college, i write standard English. so please don't assume i don't know basic spelling and grammar when this is a game.

[AlmightyGrub]

[quote name='foxfire99' timestamp='1296890901' post='2620237']
You make the assumption that C&G would have lost the war if Polar hadn't sold out TOP, which I'm not sure is completely true, but that situation is rather closed to experimentation, so I won't argue that. And saying "You should never have trusted them in the first place" is unlikely to make TOP feel any better about the situation.

And for the love of Admin, please look up and learn some basic spelling and grammar rules.
[/quote]

C&G would have been in a vastly different situation if the circumstances didn't work out they way they did. You will forgive me if I seem upset with MK, but then most of you are completely clueless and will always be. Your limited perception of the world is demonstrated in your current alignments.

As for TOP's feelings, I am sure they will cope just fine. They can be butt hurt all they like, they have every reason to think they should be so. I still don't think any of you rather clueless people have bothered to actually examine the nett results of the Bi-Polar War. I assert you are simply not looking at the right things at all, but it is hardly so very surprising from the ADHD generation.

Basic grammar and spelling aside, Doch actually has a fairly objective view. Given what I actually know happened and what has been asserted happened, Doch actually has a clue. Some of the rest of you should try finding one.

Everything.Must.Die indeed. It is long long overdue.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296879023' post='2619835']
not really. fact is TOP/co and Polaris held no treaties. fact is Polaris/MK held a treaty. fact is TOP/co hit MK/CnG. fact is MK asked Polaris to uphold the treaty. fact is Polaris upheld the treaty. yes, it was pretty !@#$%* that Grub went back on his word to TOP/co, but to not go back on his word would meant not honoring a treaty. Grub screwed himself and Polaris cuz either way he went, he broke his word to someone. unfortunately for TOP/co, he chose to break a handshake with alliances that were traditionally unfriendly with Polaris versus a written document with supposed friends.

unfortunately for Polaris; those same friends, the ones who Polaris threw away their entire political capital and much of their NS, decided to turn around and !@#$ on them hardcore. Not only did MK throw Polaris away, MK signed a treaty with TOP and then went about allowing them to be destroyed after Polaris risked everything to ensure MK was not destroyed.

i think Polaris would have gone through with allowing MK to be destroyed had they known that MK would turn around and do this to Polaris.

so, you can try to state i am not being objective, but i am far more objective than you, or TOP, or MK or many others. i can recognize the crap that Polaris has done but i can also see the crap that is done to them.

i still find it amusing that TOP was stupid enough to think they could hit a Polar ally without consequence. Honestly, ya'll should have smelled a trap when Grub agreed to allow ya'll to hit MK/CnG. ya'll should have hit all of CnG except MK forcing MK to declare on ya'll and thus nullifying the Polaris treaty. and the fact that none of ya'll get that is ridiculous. ya'll screwed up huge by hitting MK.
[/quote]

Well thats why you see there is no support for that side of the coalition this time around. They did not appreciate the concept of 'coalition warfare' 1 year ago...and from surrenders I've seen of some significant alliances right now, that same old bunch certainly doesn't gets it this time around either.

Edited February 5, 2011 by shahenshah

[der_ko]

I agree Polar betraying their coalition in bi-polar was key for decisive victory, but idea we should be eternal grateful to them for it is ridiculous. Polar put MK into impossible positions on a number of occasions for no apparent reason beyond stroking grub's ego and then there was all the !@#$ NSO pulled we had to clean up because of their connection to Polar/STA. I do not hate Polar, but I understand why there are those in MK who do.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='shahenshah' timestamp='1296902579' post='2620371']
Well thats why you see there is no support for that side of the coalition this time around. They did not appreciate the concept of 'coalition warfare' 1 year ago...and from surrenders I've seen of some significant alliances right now, that same old bunch certainly doesn't gets it this time around either.
[/quote]

oh i understand completely why there is no support for that side. that was not the point i am making.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296879023' post='2619835']
unfortunately for Polaris; those same friends, the ones who Polaris threw away their entire political capital and much of their NS, decided to turn around and !@#$ on them hardcore. Not only did MK throw Polaris away, MK signed a treaty with TOP and then went about allowing them to be destroyed after Polaris risked everything to ensure MK was not destroyed.
[/quote]
Just a thought... Wasn't the motive of Polaris more of a selfish one? That being, to see TOP burn?
If you look at the run up to that war, I really doubt Polaris cared that much for MK. Even their wareffort was not something to be proud of.

[Bilrow]

[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' timestamp='1296885584' post='2620067']
It was more of a strategic move in what we viewed as a coalition war. We saw that we would end up facing CnG and decided to get the first strike. [b]In our defense, I can't remember a time before that war when part of a coalition backstabbed the rest of the coalition and joined the other side. Up until that point when you joined a coalition it took precedence over everything, including treaties you may have with the other side. Alliances either chose a side and stuck with it or stayed neutral if they had conflicting treaties.[/b] Of course now we see alliances declaring on both sides more often.
[/quote]


Oh the irony of this statement. Why do you think Sponge hated TOP?

TOP and Crymson particularly were in ~ Coalition channels during the build up to the UJW war and were sending information back to GOONS on what was going on. We had logs and everything from it.

[Crymson]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1296921426' post='2620530']
Just a thought... Wasn't the motive of Polaris more of a selfish one? That being, to see TOP burn?
[/quote]

Exactly. And in any event, why would anyone want to seriously trust NpO after that?

[quote]
TOP and Crymson particularly were in ~ Coalition channels during the build up to the UJW war and were sending information back to GOONS on what was going on. We had logs and everything from it.
[/quote]

I was in those channels, yes, because I was invited there despite not having committed TOP to anything. Our name had immediately shown up on all sorts of lists, the assumption apparently having been made by the start that we'd be joining on ~'s side. Nobody bothered to ask me. Further, I was [b]not[/b] in the channel during the bulk of the war. I was still around for perhaps a few hours after the war began, but thereafter I quit and did not return. That you are unaware of this demonstrates that either have a poor memory or are deliberately distorting the facts.

Also pertinent was that I was our MoIA, was in my first term in any sort of government, and had absolutely no experience in politics.

Did I pass on information to GOONS? No, I didn't. That's a ridiculous allegation. You had logs? I doubt it. If you had, then I'm sure I would have seen them within the following three years, as they'd certainly have been a great item with which TOP's enemies could have discredited me. As it was, they were nowhere to be found... because they didn't exist, as I did nothing of the sort. Was I [i]speaking[/i] with GOONS? Yes, just as as I was speaking with Sponge and other ~ leaders, and all of it in an attempt to stave off the situation from developing to war, as I knew that a war would see TOP with allies on both sides of the conflict (as it happened, in the event). Did I ever pass on any protected information? No.

If you'd like to have a discussion, Bilrow, at least leave out the "My dog ate my homework"-based assertions. Sponge hated us because he wanted to. He antagonized us because he wanted to, just as he did with numerous other alliances, and he as well as admitted later on that he often behaved in such ways because it made things fun for him.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Crymson

[The MVP]

[quote name='hizzy' timestamp='1296870636' post='2619709']
oh absolutely, I'm not saying that EVERYONE in MK hates Polaris, but you sure as hell don't see any banners flying in their support. And it's still funny to see so many (even without members such as yourself) who hold such contempt for the single alliance that is responsible for them not being under surrender terms to TOP atm.

Lots of ungrateful cunts, is what I'm getting at.
[/quote]

Kind of like how Polaris is being to those that decided to bat for them again after what they did to them, eh?

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1296921426' post='2620530']
Just a thought... Wasn't the motive of Polaris more of a selfish one? That being, to see TOP burn?
If you look at the run up to that war, I really doubt Polaris cared that much for MK. Even their wareffort was not something to be proud of.
[/quote]

Oh no doubt a good portion of the motive was to see TOP burn but from what i heard during that time and prior, Polaris very much liked MK. the run up to the war- really, if anyone has any room to !@#$%* it is Ragnarok. MK has none. MK was not allied to anyone but possibly GOONS who was not hit.

the only alliance who can claim betrayal by Polaris is NSO. the fact that ya'll trying to make MK out to be some sort of victim is friggin hilarious here. seriously. it is totally hilarious. i remember being in IAA and hearing bout how if not for Athens/GR/LOST not dropping IAA, MK would have rolled out a couple of times. so MK has no room to talk about others wanting to hit their allies.

if Polaris did not care for MK, they could have easily allowed MK to get hit and peace out \m/ and then sit back and watch TOP/co trounce MK. TOP would have still gotten hit hard and Polaris could have rebuilt instead of taking dozens of TOP nukes. but yes, Polaris was purely selfish in wanting to see TOP burn, so selfish that Polaris ended up burning as well and not just infra but political. yep, i can totally see the selfishness there.

and people say i have issues being objective. Tromp's post was pure crap right there.

[quote name='The MVP' timestamp='1296927980' post='2620625']
Kind of like how Polaris is being to those that decided to bat for them again after what they did to them, eh?
[/quote]

wait wha? i honestly don't know what you are talkin about.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296928968' post='2620650']
Oh no doubt a good portion of the motive was to see TOP burn but from what i heard during that time and prior, Polaris very much liked MK. the run up to the war- really, if anyone has any room to !@#$%* it is Ragnarok. MK has none. MK was not allied to anyone but possibly GOONS who was not hit.[/quote]
To say MK had 'none' is pretty ignorant to be honest, unless you disregard the fact that MK had plenty of allies that would be facing each other should NpO push through. (Which they did.)
Also, anyone remember the "not appropriate vs wrong" issue?

[quote]
the only alliance who can claim betrayal by Polaris is NSO. the fact that ya'll trying to make MK out to be some sort of victim is friggin hilarious here. seriously. it is totally hilarious. i remember being in IAA and hearing bout how if not for Athens/GR/LOST not dropping IAA, MK would have rolled out a couple of times. so MK has no room to talk about others wanting to hit their allies. [/quote]
I wasn't really talking of betrayal, I was criticizing you for making NpO look like an angel. Because they're not.
Way to bring up irrelevant stuff I guess.

[quote]
if Polaris did not care for MK, they could have easily allowed MK to get hit and peace out \m/ and then sit back and watch TOP/co trounce MK. TOP would have still gotten hit hard and Polaris could have rebuilt instead of taking dozens of TOP nukes. but yes, Polaris was purely selfish in wanting to see TOP burn, so selfish that Polaris ended up burning as well and not just infra but political. yep, i can totally see the selfishness there.
[/quote]
What I remember is that Polaris didn't actually make a lot of their nations fight TOP. I might be mistaken ofcourse, if there's anyone who can clarify on this other then Doch ( ) that would be appreciated.

And yes, it was selfishness, so much even that they are still defending that crap. Sorry, no one is going to buy the "Polar was all good, just and holy" line. Actions speak louder then words, I'm sure you're aware of that.
[quote]
and people say i have issues being objective. Tromp's post was pure crap right there.
[/quote]
Wow, what a staggering amount of hostility for asking one question to you. Did I really deserve that?

But anyway, I can take it, don't you worry.

[Crymson]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1296930994' post='2620709']
What I remember is that Polaris didn't actually make a lot of their nations fight TOP. I might be mistaken ofcourse, if there's anyone who can clarify on this other then Doch ( ) that would be appreciated.
[/quote]

We didn't fight a lot of Polaris nations. They comprised a part of the one of the many waves against us, and that's about it.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1296931420' post='2620717']
We didn't fight a lot of Polaris nations. They comprised a part of the one of the many waves against us, and that's about it.
[/quote]
Yeah, thought so.

But I'll withhold judgement for now since you're TOP, and wait for someone else to comment on this, Doch may get furious with me you know.

[hizzy]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1296932635' post='2620737']
Yeah, thought so.

But I'll withhold judgement for now since you're TOP, and wait for someone else to comment on this, Doch may get furious with me you know.
[/quote]

Well, considering that TOP had what... 200 or so nations, and aside from declaring war on MK, were countered by a !@#$ ton of other alliances, I don't think any single alliance can say they took a lion's share, except maybe MK due to TOP actually hitting them first.

[Tromp]

[quote name='hizzy' timestamp='1296937303' post='2620877']
Well, considering that TOP had what... 200 or so nations, and aside from declaring war on MK, were countered by a !@#$ ton of other alliances, I don't think any single alliance can say they took a lion's share, except maybe MK due to TOP actually hitting them first.
[/quote]
That's a fair point.

Still, if we were to believe Doch Polar put all their effort into defending MK, even taking "dozens of TOP nukes". Truly this is a sign of commitment!

[Mirreille]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1296930994' post='2620709']
What I remember is that Polaris didn't actually make a lot of their nations fight TOP. I might be mistaken ofcourse, if there's anyone who can clarify on this other then Doch ( ) that would be appreciated.
[/quote]

My AA was not involved in that war in any fashion. I do read the forums quite regularly though, especially during the wars. My recollection is that Polar had already been engaged in the first part of that war fairly heavily; by the time they switched TOP both had most of their war slots already taken, and Polaris had few nations in range to engage them with. People who are a lot more familiar with the actual military details might be able to correct me on this if I am wrong.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Corinan' timestamp='1296835825' post='2619307']
This thread is dumb and shouldn't have been created.
[/quote]
I can get behind this. I don't even get it, isn't MVP fighting on Polaris's side right now?

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1296930994' post='2620709']
To say MK had 'none' is pretty ignorant to be honest, unless you disregard the fact that MK had plenty of allies that would be facing each other should NpO push through. (Which they did.)
Also, anyone remember the "not appropriate vs wrong" issue? [/quote]

that happens in almost every war. it happened in this war. if that is the case, then tons of people should be outright furious with VE for exactly the same reason as MK was with Polaris. so don't get me that load of !@#$. it happens in every war and will happen in every war unless there are two distinct sides.

[quote]I wasn't really talking of betrayal, I was criticizing you for making NpO look like an angel. Because they're not.
Way to bring up irrelevant stuff I guess.[/quote]

where did i make NpO look like an angel? i have brought up their mistakes (such as Grub/Polaris breaking their word to TOP/co and betraying NSO). hell, i even agreed with you that a good portion of their motive in screwing over TOP was to see TOP burn. so please do tell me, where i made NpO look like an angel? again with the lack of objectivity.

[quote]What I remember is that Polaris didn't actually make a lot of their nations fight TOP. I might be mistaken ofcourse, if there's anyone who can clarify on this other then Doch ( ) that would be appreciated.[/quote]

where did i state that Polaris hit TOP all that hard? i stated that they hit TOP. most of my comment was directed towards Polaris burning up much, if not all, of their political capital that sits with them to this day. All that in order to help MK out. Polaris got slammed by FOK and PC iirc amongst other alliances prior to declaring war on TOP. i don't recall if any other alliance in TFIDTT declared on Polaris or not though.

[quote]And yes, it was selfishness, so much even that they are still defending that crap. Sorry, no one is going to buy the "Polar was all good, just and holy" line. Actions speak louder then words, I'm sure you're aware of that.[/quote]

for one, i have not spouted any such "Polar was all good, just and hole" bs. i have spouted that Polaris defended MK and burnt all their political capital up for MK (though Polaris was screwed either way really. if they did not defend MK, then they would not be honoring a treaty and allowing an ally to be hit and thus would lose much of their political capital regardless).

[quote]Wow, what a staggering amount of hostility for asking one question to you. Did I really deserve that?

But anyway, I can take it, don't you worry.[/quote]

sorry for sounding hostile, but yes you did deserve it since it was obvious you misread basically everything i stated. i have defended Polaris but only to a point since i have also pointed out what wrongs they did commit during the Bi-Polar war. and no, i don't consider Polaris putting MK's allies on opposite sides of the war as a wrong since most treaties can easily be activated in a certain way to ensure no ally hits another. again, look at this war as a fine example of that. if MK is seriously that butthurt over their allies possibly being on opposite sides of the Bi-Polar war then they need to grow a pair. it is obvious them being butthurt is more political since they are now going about breaking all the rules eh? much like the Karma propaganda was political and damn near everything they have done since then was political. if MK wants to cry about some stupid "wrong" from Bi-Polar, then that is their issue. it is frankly, just pathetic since the "wrong" they are crying about happens in damn near every war.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Dochartaigh

[Choson]

[quote name='We Are Not Alone' timestamp='1295317943' post='2579505']
VE have been opportunists for forever. I shall nail their hands and feet to the cross soon enough and burn it while I watch.
[/quote]
I know that this all the way back the start of this topic, but how's this working out for you? Seen any success?

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1296937556' post='2620884']
That's a fair point.

Still, if we were to believe Doch Polar put all their effort into defending MK, even taking "dozens of TOP nukes". Truly this is a sign of commitment!
[/quote]

no, i stated they defended MK. taking nukes after already getting hit hard hurts. anyone knows this. they may have had limited engagement on the TOP front but considering TOP's nations usually had much more tech along with WRCs will hurt.

i may have been wrong on how much NS Polaris threw away defending MK but at this point, any amount of NS loss by Polaris for MK was way too much.

as for my statement of Polaris risking everything- see the political fallout. risking everything does not simply mean infra. Polaris kind of threw NSO under the bus for MK, despite NSO supporting Polaris far more than MK (during the Bi-Polar war) did. and again, Polaris threw away basically all of their political capital in order to honor a treaty with MK. and again, i point out MK wanting to roll IAA but being stopped by Athens/GR/LOST. IAA at that time was a Polar ally as was MK. so again, talking about the impossible positions Polaris put MK in... seems MK wants to !@#$%* about Polaris doing it to them, while they did it to Polaris...

[Chalaskan]

Polaris hit TOP as hard as they could considering the other front's they had going. They band wagoned and hit to keep us out of PM every opportunity given. In fact I would say we were the main target after they switched sides. Mor than likely most of their offensive war slots were spent on TOP...just they didn't have a lot, and we didn't have many defensive slots open as we were being hit by what 29 alliances? Honestly don't recall how many but it was a !@#$load.

[Sephiroth]

I think its obvious by now this war was never really about Polaris, but mostly about alliances trying to pull NPO into a war through attacking an indirect ally. When that didn't work they attacked NPO directly, but people's feelings on Polaris shouldn't effect how they act this war.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296938276' post='2620899']
that happens in almost every war. it happened in this war. [...]
[/quote]
True, it happens almost every war, although I'm not sure to the extent of that particular situation.
Still, I do think it is a legit reason to feel at least unhappy with your ally who does it to you.

[quote]
where did i make NpO look like an angel? i have brought up their mistakes (such as Grub/Polaris breaking their word to TOP/co and betraying NSO). hell, i even agreed with you that a good portion of their motive in screwing over TOP was to see TOP burn. so please do tell me, where i made NpO look like an angel? again with the lack of objectivity.
[/quote]
That's what I read in the part of the post I quoted initially (although the rest of that post is fine to point at as well):
"[MK] then went about allowing them to be destroyed after Polaris risked everything [b]to ensure MK was not destroyed[/b]. "
This seems horribly inaccurate to me (Grub even pointed TOP/IRON at MK/CnG), but yes, indeed you even admit yourself that Polaris certainly didn't switch sides mainly out of love for MK. I'll drop that point, although I'm not willing to buy Grub cared one single !@#$@#$ bit about MK there, no matter what you say, sorry.

Also, I never made the objectivity argument.
[quote]
where did i state that Polaris hit TOP all that hard? i stated that they hit TOP. most of my comment was directed towards Polaris burning up much, if not all, of their political capital that sits with them to this day. All that in order to help MK out. Polaris got slammed by FOK and PC iirc amongst other alliances prior to declaring war on TOP. i don't recall if any other alliance in TFIDTT declared on Polaris or not though.
[/quote]
What I was saying is that I don't believe you can say that because they committed a couple of nations to the overall wareffort Polaris cared about MK, which is what you claimed. One can also ask himself whether one should want to accept the help of someone who caused you harm. That's the main issue I think here. You can't expect someone to be thankful for providing help after he made another guy slam you in the face.
[quote]
for one, i have not spouted any such "Polar was all good, just and hole" bs. i have spouted that Polaris defended MK and burnt all their political capital up [b]for MK[/b] (though Polaris was screwed either way really. if they did not defend MK, then they would not be honoring a treaty and allowing an ally to be hit and thus would lose much of their political capital regardless).
[/quote]
Hey, you're doing it again! I object to the bolded part, that should be clear by now. I insist that Polar did it not for MK, and that their behaviour in that war allows for no excuse, no matter how you sugercoat it.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296938961' post='2620913']
no, i stated they defended MK. taking nukes after already getting hit hard hurts. anyone knows this. they may have had limited engagement on the TOP front but considering TOP's nations usually had much more tech along with WRCs will hurt.
[/quote]
But that's not excuse when you make the argument that Polar defended MK because of treaty obligations, because all treatypartners of MK, including my own alliance, were hurting from it.
[quote][...]

as for my statement of Polaris risking everything- see the political fallout. risking everything does not simply mean infra. Polaris kind of threw NSO under the bus for MK, despite NSO supporting Polaris far more than MK (during the Bi-Polar war) did. and again, Polaris threw away basically all of their political capital in order to honor a treaty with MK. [...]
[/quote]
Why should I feel sorry for Polaris? They did this out of their own accord, yes even created that war and various events in it. The sympathy-card doesn't work here, sorry to disappoint.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296938961' post='2620913']
Polaris threw away basically all of their political capital in order to honor a treaty with MK.
[/quote]
You know I like you, but that is an utter steaming pile of self-serving !@#$%^&*.

[Chief Savage Man]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296938961' post='2620913']
Polaris threw away basically all of their political capital in order to honor a treaty with MK.
[/quote]

I guess they did throw away what minuscule amount they had left after putting all of their friends through hell during Grub's \m/ stunt