A Statement from Doomhouse

[D34th]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1302266408' post='2686724']
There was enough to go on and hurting the overall war strategically by allowing it to drag out longer was not in our interests. It wasn't really proven false in an actual sense. It was denied that it was being done for the benefit of NPO, but not that it was actually happening in some sense. The only solid argument I've seen against doing it hasn't amounted to "NPO wasn't going to enter," but rather "NPO's treaty links hadn't been activated, but they would enter in case of their allies involvement." The issue with the latter is when the alliances that can bring NPO in are being positioned in a manner where they do not enter early on means either we play along with that strategy or attack them. After six days of playing along, it made more sense to just go in. So essentially, what our "moral obligation" was supposed to be, was to hurt ourselves strategically for NPO's benefit and that just has no currency.
[/quote]

I would be okay with everything that you said if you weren't against this when TOP did it. Do you remember you saying that TOP [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80942&view=findpost&p=2197846"]lost their credibility[/url] for attacking CnG? Do you remember [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80942&view=findpost&p=2184064"]you agreeing in [b]all points[/b][/url] with Archon in his speech condemning TOP preemptive attack?

So my question to you is: Were you lying past year or are you lying now? And please don't come with the excuse that opinions change over the time, because when they change only and when it is profitable to you this is called hypocrisy and you become an opportunist. So any answer you gave to me I already know one thing: You are not a reliable person.

[Monster]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1302268458' post='2686735']
I would be okay with everything that you said if you weren't against this when TOP did it. Do you remember you saying that TOP [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80942&view=findpost&p=2197846"]lost their credibility[/url] for attacking CnG? Do you remember [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80942&view=findpost&p=2184064"]you agreeing in [b]all points[/b][/url] with Archon in his speech condemning TOP preemptive attack?

So my question to you is: Were you lying past year or are you lying now? And please don't come with the excuse that opinions change over the time, because when they change only and when it is profitable to you this is called hypocrisy and you become an opportunist. So any answer you gave to me I already know one thing: You are not a reliable person.
[/quote]

That took some digging, but I thought I explained earlier in this thread why I was upset at TOP and my posting was colored consequently by that fact and most of my argumentation in the first thread you quoted was explaining how the preempt was bad strategically because of a good number of Polar allies being tied to MK. Personally, I just saw a direct attack on our ally as insult to injury based on how things had gone with TOP before that and posted accordingly out of frustration. Maybe my post wasn't well thought out in Archon's thread, but I just wanted to be supportive and of course you get into posting !@#$ like "agreed on all points" when that's your aim. You can say I was lying then and that I'm not reliable, but there's your explanation.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1302262219' post='2686702']
Well, I did hear that your warchest is larger than Invicta's top 40 all together, but I guess that would be considering too much of Invicta.
[/quote]
You guys spied my warchest a couple weeks or so ago. I consider it adequate but it's not the largest one we have.

[quote name='Lord Gobb' timestamp='1302268041' post='2686733']
You should know better than to pick the worst prepared nation of an alliance and use it as an insult considering you have a 10k infra member who got bill locked by peace mode.
[/quote]
Hey, I'm not the one in here claiming I'm in the godliest military alliance. That's you guys' line.

I'm just making remarks about glass houses.

[mrwuss]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1302260492' post='2686697']
Yawn. You ever fight me? No?

Shut the $%&@ up and get out of my face, loser.
[/quote]


Ahaha, are you serious?

Ahahahahaha.

[Hadrian]

[quote name='mrwuss' timestamp='1302270108' post='2686748']
Ahaha, are you serious?

Ahahahahaha.
[/quote]

Regnum Invictorum:
NS - 1.5m
ANS - 24k
Nukes - 596
Members - [b]64
[/b]
Goon Order of Oppression Negligence and Sadism:
NS - 1.8m
ANS - 4k
Nukes - 435
Members - [b]407

[/b]Ahahahahaha. Haha.

Hahahaha!

[Gobb]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1302269802' post='2686743']
Hey, I'm not the one in here claiming I'm in the godliest military alliance. That's you guys' line.
[/quote]
Don't worry, even with a few not-so-well prepared nations we still have the godliest military. Seriously though, we are better prepared than you are. That's why Legionnaires have been dominating the biggest losers stats ever since they started bringing upper tier out of peace mode.

[speakerwire]

People forget that eventually you'll starve in your bunker if you never leave.

By the way, I would like to thank NPO for it's kind aid post nuclear disaster. The money you're providing is really helping my nation stay afloat in its time of need.

[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1302270815' post='2686757']
Regnum Invictorum:
NS - 1.5m
ANS - 24k
Nukes - 596
Members - [b]64
[/b]
Goon Order of Oppression Negligence and Sadism:
NS - 1.8m
ANS - 4k
Nukes - 435
Members - [b]407

[/b]Ahahahahaha. Haha.

Hahahaha!
[/quote]

It's funny because if a member of the DH group compares numbers, they're told they stupid because 'numbers don't reflect anything'.

Hmm.

Edited April 8, 2011 by speakerwire

[Borsche]

Let's be honest here. Doomhouse attacked NPO because that's the only way they know how to say hello.

[Hadrian]

[quote name='Lord Gobb' timestamp='1302270919' post='2686759']
Don't worry, even with a few not-so-well prepared nations we still have the godliest military. Seriously though, we are better prepared than you are. That's why Legionnaires have been dominating the biggest losers stats ever since they started bringing upper tier out of peace mode.
[/quote]
You're [i]really[/i] not one to talk...

[img]http://s628.photobucket.com/albums/uu8/AlexanderTheGreat2009/CNawardsstats8-4-11.jpg[/img]


[quote name='speakerwire' timestamp='1302270942' post='2686760']
People forget that eventually you'll starve in your bunker if you never leave.

By the way, I would like to thank NPO for it's kind aid post nuclear disaster. The money you're providing is really helping my nation stay afloat in its time of need.

It's funny because if a member of the DH group compares numbers, they're told they stupid because 'numbers don't reflect anything'.

Hmm.
[/quote]
What I find absolutely hilarious is that there's all this hate on Invicta and yet GOONS, with nearly [i]seven times the members[/i], has only three mil more on total NS.

Not only that, but GOONS also has about 150-200 less nukes, and an ANS of 4k as opposed to 24k.

[i]"Oh butbutbutbut we're a low-tier alliance!!! Boo hooooo!!!!"[/i]

[i]"We apologise, but that excuse is no longer honoured at this establishment."[/i]

[i]"Butbutbutbut we gawt declared on bai over 9000 alliancees!!!!! Booo hoooo!!"

"Again, we apologise, but you were practically begging for it."[/i]

Sorry but that cracked me up. Way to go Invicta. o/

[Zarfef]

Don't really have time to read all this but - just out of curiosity...

Has anything really important been concluded over the last 4,000 posts in this thread? I mean, for something that large, there ought to be some very fascinating conclusions, but every-time I log in it just doesn't present itself. For those who are obviously following this better then I, please enlighten me.

Thank you,
Zarfef

[speakerwire]

[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1302272130' post='2686778']
Not only that, but GOONS also has about 150-200 less nukes, and an ANS of 4k as opposed to 24k.[/quote]

A nuke is a poor indicator of strength as you can both wreck peoples '!@#$' without nukes or after having your '!@#$' wrecked by nukes.

The only thing its really useful for indicating is wealth.

[quote][i]"Oh butbutbutbut we're a low-tier alliance!!! Boo hooooo!!!!"[/i] [/quote]

The only 'boo-hoo'ing I'm seeing is mixed with the 'blooo-boo'ing on the part of those who think reperation demanded of them have been unfair.

[Chief Savage Man]

[quote name='Zarfef' timestamp='1302275905' post='2686829']
Don't really have time to read all this but - just out of curiosity...

Has anything really important been concluded over the last 4,000 posts in this thread? I mean, for something that large, there ought to be some very fascinating conclusions, but every-time I log in it just doesn't present itself. For those who are obviously following this better then I, please enlighten me.

Thank you,
Zarfef
[/quote]

You must be new here.

[xzenith]

[quote name='Zarfef' timestamp='1302275905' post='2686829']
Don't really have time to read all this but - just out of curiosity...

Has anything really important been concluded over the last 4,000 posts in this thread? I mean, for something that large, there ought to be some very fascinating conclusions, but every-time I log in it just doesn't present itself. For those who are obviously following this better then I, please enlighten me.

Thank you,
Zarfef
[/quote]

This sums it up perfectly (was posted on page 39 originally):

[img]http://i.imgur.com/UEiEz.png[/img]

We are currently stuck in the loop near the top.

[Gobb]

[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1302272130' post='2686778']
You're [i]really[/i] not one to talk...

[img]http://s628.photobucket.com/albums/uu8/AlexanderTheGreat2009/CNawardsstats8-4-11.jpg[/img]

[/quote]
Yeah, we've had a rough week or so with deletions. Also those nukes from the upper tier Legionnaires do hurt a bit in addition to us being the alliance our enemies are concentrating atm. Take a look at the box next to that one and you'll see what I'm talking about; it's all purple with a flash of red, baby yeah.

[Williambonney]

[quote name='speakerwire' timestamp='1302275922' post='2686830']
A nuke is a poor indicator of strength as you can both wreck peoples '!@#$' without nukes or after having your '!@#$' wrecked by nukes.

The only thing its really useful for indicating is wealth.
[/quote]

Some of us like to drive in the fast lane kiddo.


[quote]We are currently stuck in the loop near the top.[/quote]

Still waiting on that Doitzel chap to show up.


[quote]Don't really have time to read all this but - just out of curiosity...

Has anything really important been concluded over the last 4,000 posts in this thread? I mean, for something that large, there ought to be some very fascinating conclusions, but every-time I log in it just doesn't present itself. For those who are obviously following this better then I, please enlighten me.

Thank you,
Zarfef [/quote]

I've deduced something very important. Seems that goons like pirates.

[Letum]

[quote name='speakerwire' timestamp='1302275922' post='2686830']
The only thing its really useful for indicating is wealth.
[/quote]

For some of us, it's also useful in taking out 1000 infra per hit.

[speakerwire]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1302280132' post='2686887']
For some of us, it's also useful in taking out 1000 infra per hit.
[/quote]

Not when it's used on a sub 3k NS nation.

[Letum]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1302266408' post='2686724']
So essentially, what our "moral obligation" was supposed to be, was to hurt ourselves strategically for NPO's benefit and that just has no currency.
[/quote]

If only morally upright behavior was always in alignment to strategic interests, how fun the world would be.

[Joe Izuzu]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1302266408' post='2686724']
There was enough to go on and hurting the overall war strategically by allowing it to drag out longer was not in our interests. It wasn't really proven false in an actual sense. It was denied that it was being done for the benefit of NPO, but not that it was actually happening in some sense. The only solid argument I've seen against doing it hasn't amounted to "NPO wasn't going to enter," but rather "NPO's treaty links hadn't been activated, but they would enter in case of their allies involvement." The issue with the latter is when the alliances that can bring NPO in are being positioned in a manner where they do not enter early on means either we play along with that strategy or attack them. After six days of playing along, it made more sense to just go in. So essentially, what our "moral obligation" was supposed to be, was to hurt ourselves strategically for NPO's benefit and that just has no currency.
[/quote]


Roq, even if one accepts that the rationale you posit here for your attack is truthful (which I don't, despite the fact that you, personally, have been fairly consistent in maintaining it), it does nothing to justify the outrageous position that DH has taken relative to cessation of hostilities. If you maintain that your entry was simply strategic and not thuggery, then how do you justify your current position on ending the conflict? The two positions are mutually exclusive.

AFAIAC, you attacked an uninvolved bystander because you had the opportunity to hit while that bystander was demilitarized and because the wider conflict gave you a (transparently bogus) excuse to do so. You cite that NPO was moving nations into peace mode, but neglect to mention that the reason for that was not due to plans to enter, but simply a precautionary move made in response to Sparta's no-treaty attack on NV. Given that [s]baseless[/s] coalition attacks had been launched, it was simply prudent to move to protect against the possibility of such an attack. If you recall, Umbrella were the ones that ordered Sparta to attack in the first place. You are intentionally leaving out key facts in your spin fest in the hopes that, if you repeat the fabricated rationale enough times, the weak-minded will eventually accept it as truth.

The fact that DH launched this war with no justification, continues it despite the termination of the conflict that served as its alleged justification in the first place, and has demanded what are blatantly objectionable terms in order to end the conflict that they themselves initiated makes it clear that you had/have no interest in anything other than perpetrating a mugging and making sure that the victim cannot press charges after the fact.

[The Crimson King]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1302261964' post='2686701']
If you posit NPO as a random alliance, then what you say might check out. Ultimately, they were lining up to oppose us in a particular conflict and their treaty chains were being maneuveured in a strategic manner so they wouldn't have to enter until they were ready to do so.[b] Have they denied their potential participation as of yet? No, because to say they were going to definitively stay out wouldn't be something they could say in good faith.[/b] Otherwise, they could have followed NATO's route in a different conflict with a declaration of non-aggression if they were worried about getting hit despite being avowedly neutral to the conflict.
[/quote]


This again?

You have been told numerous times that the reason no one (except yourself) can say with 100% certainty what one would have done is because unlike yourself we do not claim to be omniscient. There is no way for any of us to know what would have transpired had this played out since..well..you did not let it play out. I fail to see how this is so hard of a concept to grasp or one you still seem to try to spin into an admission of guilt by this side.

The bottom line is that NPO had no treaty chain into the war at the time you hit. Period. There was no way FOR them to enter should they have wanted to.

[quote]

There was enough to go on and [b]hurting the overall war strategically by allowing it to drag out longer was not in our interests.[/b] It wasn't really proven false in an actual sense. It was denied that it was being done for the benefit of NPO, but not that it was actually happening in some sense. The only solid argument I've seen against doing it hasn't amounted to "NPO wasn't going to enter," but rather "NPO's treaty links hadn't been activated, but they would enter in case of their allies involvement." The issue with the latter is when the alliances that can bring NPO in are being positioned in a manner where they do not enter early on means either we play along with that strategy or attack them. After six days of playing along, it made more sense to just go in. So essentially, what our "moral obligation" was supposed to be, was to hurt ourselves strategically for NPO's benefit and that just has no currency.

[/quote]

And once again this is where your whole argument really falls flat.

As I pointed out in response to crymson a few pages back, DH was already in position and set up to hit NPO should they have entered. IF NPO chained in on an OA with an ally, or waited to counter a counter then they would be engaged on a primary front, and the whole of DH/FAN rolls in and takes them on the flank. It is the exact reason why DH was kept out of the war initially.

The fundamental issue with your thinking as posted is that there is no logical reason whatsoever to say it was not in your interests to allow this to drag out. The polar front was already won based on the commitments you had there. You can't debate this fact since you already peaced that front out with just the commitments you had there at the time of your pre-empt. If this war was really about Polar then you and NPO playing the staring match would have allowed VE and co to roll up Polar..war is over. Should NPO entered, you were already positioned with the loaded gun to their head once they walked through the door, you simply pull the trigger....Polar war is over. Either way if rolling Polar was the goal of the war, then your ends were met.

By preempting you did not help end the Polar war any faster. In fact, as I have told you numerous times, you escalated this front and there are currently alliances still fighting on it that would have never entered the war in any shape or form had it stayed with just Polar. You had to pull assets such as CnG off the Polar front prior to completion to help address this front or use assets such as TOP on this front exclusively (to counter alliances that would not even be in the war period had you not opened this front) that could have been deployed over there, which in turn would have drawn that conflict to a close faster, and had your allies and friends absorb less damage. Ultimately it can be argued that you in fact caused that front to drag out longer that it could or should have by this decision.

The only reason whatsoever to actually open this front is not out of concern for NPO's entry but rather fear they were actually NOT going to enter. You sacrificed political capital, military position, assets, and what ammts to the proverbial high ground here, to push a line that would have been slaughtered should they have chosen to charge. As you already stated a post war environment would have seen NPO isolated and certainly not any threat. Sure you could of went after them...but that would mean dummying up another CB, and doing so so soon after this dog and pony show would not have been preferable. You wanted both Orders with one CB. You got one of them. That was not good enough. So lets dispense with the military planning spin at this point because if this was a pure military decision based on simply bringing the polar war to a close then it was a piss poor one. The only way you consider this outcome to be favorable is if the motivation for the war was this front in the first place. In that case then you have a success, but it also refutes every point and reason you have been providing for the war.

Edited April 8, 2011 by The Crimson King

[ControlVolume]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1302280132' post='2686887']
For some of us, it's also useful in taking out 1000 infra per hit.
[/quote]
Well whenever you're prepared to actually use those 1000 infra nukes let us know.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1302260897' post='2686699']
You're right, it doesn't say anything about concrete reason, I was just stating that there was no concrete justification for the acts of war against NPO and since you avoided the question I should think that you couldn't find any concrete reason.[/quote]
"No concrete justification for acts of war" is entirely your opinion. You don't find DH's justifications to be valid and thats all well and good because that is [i]your[/i] opinion. I've already stated that I am not going to debate you on your opinions because such things are entirely subjective and are not based on facts. So no I didn't avoid your question.

[quote] Let's move on: Following your point, will be attacked any alliance who in future [b]could allegedly[/b] become a threat to DH ? And wasn't this the Pacifica's [i]Modus operandi[/i] in the [i]pax[/i] pacifica days who are behind us and are so criticized for the DH who use them as one of the reasons to attack NPO?[/quote]
Any alliance can be attacked by anyone else for whatever reason they desire. Yes, DH could attack someone in the future for posing a threat. Polar could potentially attack someone in the future for posing a threat to their alliances security. The same can be said of anyone in this world. Infact, the vast majority of wars that we've seen on this planet come down to an alliance posing a threat to someone else.

By bringing in NPO's previous MO into the argument and DH's criticisms of it you are making the original argument of "they didn't have a CB" into one of "I don't agree with their CB." These are two separate arguments and I don't give a damn about the latter.

[quote]From the same site:

Definition of ALLEGE: [b]questionably true ; accused but not proven or convicted.[/b]

Yeah [b]this[/b] type of [i]Casus Belli[/i] matches perfectly with DH reasons to attack NPO.
[/quote]
This has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing.

You people can't get it through your head that just because you didn't agree with DH's justifications doesn't mean they didn't have one.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Feanor Noldorin

[Joe Izuzu]

And just because they have a reason does not make it justifiable.

The mugger has a reason for assaulting someone walking down the street.

The burglar has a reason for robbing someone's home.

The serial killer has a reason for murdering people.

None of their reasons are justifiable.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Joe Izuzu' timestamp='1302283361' post='2686932']
And just because they have a reason does not make it justifiable.
[/quote]
You don't find their reasons justifiable and thats okay. I'm sure I could find a DH member who does though.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Feanor Noldorin

[Joe Izuzu]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1302285407' post='2686954']
You don't find their reasons justifiable and thats okay. I'm sure I could find a DH member who does though.
[/quote]


I am sure that you could. Mindless drones seem to be all the rage on that side of the fence these days. Just another way that DH and co. have stolen NPO's thunder lately.