A Statement from Doomhouse

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Joe Izuzu' timestamp='1302285720' post='2686960']
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.
[/quote]
There are mindless drones on each side.

[speakerwire]

[quote name='Joe Izuzu' timestamp='1302285720' post='2686960']
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.
[/quote]

So your argument about justification is proven moot as you admit that you don't accept the justification provided, not that there isn't a justification.

So why don't you just argue that you don't like it, not that it's unjustified.

Edited April 8, 2011 by speakerwire

[The Catalyst]

i understand what your all talking about......no really....

[HHAYD]

[quote name='ControlVolume' timestamp='1302239312' post='2686553']
For example, let's deconstruct that last sentence of yours. You claim that fighting would be charging recklessly into a massacre, where all your nations would be at the mercy of overwhelming numerical superiority. [b]But, did you not have allies? Did you not have those who entered the war to defend you? NPO and its allies enjoyed numerical superiority in the opening stages of the war, but they squandered it by hiding in peace mode and letting their allies burn.[/b] Now, after your meatshields have fallen around you, you cry about how oppressed you are, how you are surrounded by bullies picking on a poor, defenseless alliance that was only linked by a treaty, boo hoo and woe! [i]You, your alliance, and your treaty partners have placed yourselves in this disadvantageous position by your own paralyzing fear and inaction.[/i] And all the moral arguments in the world won't stop your alliance from burning. For your particular alliance, the only release from this crucible will be reparations. For the NPO, the only release will be battle.
[/quote]
[b]Bold[/b]: Let me explain there are three main tiers of fighters in almost every major alliances.

-Upper
-Middle
-Lower

The bolded section is where DH dominated and the italics are where NPO and its allies dominated when the war started:

[b]-Upper[/b]
[i]-Middle
-Lower[/i]

Do keep in mind that there's no definite line, you can divide the tiers into as many as you wish. However, only a handful of upper tier fighters can hit the middle tier, middle tier fighters can hit the upper and lower tier, and lower tier fighters can hit the middle. But an entire tire can't engage another tier above or below it.

Numbers of members are part of a story, the groups of the various sizes of the members are also part of the story.

A 10,000 NS fighter can not engage a 100,000 NS fighter. An alliance with one thousand 10,000 NS fighters and one 100,000 NS fighter can not expect its lone upper tier fighter to be effective when its opponent has five hundred 10,000 NS fighters and five hundred and one 100,000 NS fighters, remember that.


Itallic: Oh yes, abandoning a long-time ally as soon as times get rough or because the ally is allied to another alliance. I hope your alliance doesn't do that, does it?

Enforcing reps on alliances that entered the war due to only activated treaty ties. I think your alliance is starting to become what it hated in the past if it keeps it up. [i][b]Two wrongs don't make right[/b][/i], remember that as well.

Edited April 8, 2011 by HHAYD

[Letum]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1302283000' post='2686924']
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.
[/quote]

I wonder how many DH members thought that way when they happily went along with defining one specific conflict as the "NoCB" war.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1302296113' post='2687059']
I wonder how many DH members thought that way when they happily went along with defining one specific conflict as [b]the "NoCB" war.[/b]
[/quote]
Or more like "Anything is a CB" war.

Edited April 8, 2011 by HHAYD

[Borsche]

[quote name='Joe Izuzu' timestamp='1302283361' post='2686932']
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.
[/quote]

Depends on their reasons.

[mrcalkin]

[quote name='Borsche' timestamp='1302297420' post='2687077']
Depends on their reasons.
[/quote]

As well as the definition of justifiable. By nature, something being justified is subjective. One person may think someone stealing bread to feed their children is justifiable, while someone else might see that as unjustifiable since it is still theft.


[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1302296113' post='2687059']
I wonder how many DH members thought that way when they happily went along with defining one specific conflict as the "NoCB" war.
[/quote]

Funny fact: 1/3 of DH fought on one side of that war, 1/3 fought on the other, and the last 1/3 didn't yet exist.

Edited April 8, 2011 by mrcalkin

[ControlVolume]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1302296107' post='2687058']
[b]Bold[/b]: Let me explain there are three main tiers of fighters in almost every major alliances.

-Upper
-Middle
-Lower

The bolded section is where DH dominated and the italics are where NPO and its allies dominated when the war started:

[b]-Upper[/b]
[i]-Middle
-Lower[/i]

Do keep in mind that there's no definite line, you can divide the tiers into as many as you wish. However, only a handful of upper tier fighters can hit the middle tier, middle tier fighters can hit the upper and lower tier, and lower tier fighters can hit the middle. But an entire tire can't engage another tier above or below it.

Numbers of members are part of a story, the groups of the various sizes of the members are also part of the story.

A 10,000 NS fighter can not engage a 100,000 NS fighter. An alliance with one thousand 10,000 NS fighters and one 100,000 NS fighter can not expect its lone upper tier fighter to be effective when its opponent has five hundred 10,000 NS fighters and five hundred and one 100,000 NS fighters, remember that.
[/quote]
Thank you for this wonderful lesson in the obvious that does absolutely nothing to combat my argument that you're in an alliance full of cowards. But seeing as directly combating things is a foreign concept to you, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1302296107' post='2687058']
Itallic: Oh yes, abandoning a long-time ally as soon as times get rough or because the ally is allied to another alliance. I hope your alliance doesn't do that, does it?

Enforcing reps on alliances that entered the war due to only activated treaty ties. I think your alliance is starting to become what it hated in the past if it keeps it up. [i][b]Two wrongs don't make right[/b][/i], remember that as well.
[/quote]
Is this some sort of bizarre attempt at twisting words? Or do you just post rebuttals to statements that don't exist, then italicize a completely random phrase with hopes that readers won't actually read the source? You'll only win the support of idiots that way, but at least there will be symmetry, I guess.

[Letum]

[quote name='mrcalkin' timestamp='1302297724' post='2687078']
Funny fact: 1/3 of DH fought on one side of that war, 1/3 fought on the other, and the last 1/3 didn't yet exist.
[/quote]

I suppose that means 1/3 of them is consistent in their actions then, if not their words.

[D34th]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1302269184' post='2686738']
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.
[/quote]

I rest my case.

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='mrcalkin' timestamp='1302297724' post='2687078']
One person may think someone stealing bread to feed their children is justifiable, while someone else might see that as unjustifiable since it is still theft.
[/quote]

DoomHouse isn't a family of poor kids.

[Williambonney]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1302283000' post='2686924']

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.
[/quote]

I don't know about him (or her?) but I don't agree with DH's justifications because they didn't have any, not because I don't agree with them (obviously I am aware that is a paradox in itself, so it must come natural to you). Does TOP still have an embassy with us by the way? I remember seeing one, unless it was just a fantasy.

In the land of the grown ups, we discuss things with other governments to attempt to find a resolution prior to going to war, not just going to war out of the blue. So I guess if NPO is guilty of anything here, it's assuming other governments aren't being run by children.

Edited April 8, 2011 by William Bonney

[Thrash]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1302262219' post='2686702']
Well, I did hear that your warchest is larger than Invicta's top 40 all together
[/quote]

I wouldn't trust that source anymore, unless they just have a difficulty with Math.

[GeoLauzier]

Still no one made a valid argument why the CB is not good. All they say is : "WOW IT'S NOT GOOD".

Please give me a valid argument.

[Williambonney]

[quote name='GeoLauzier' timestamp='1302303214' post='2687112']
Still no one made a valid argument why the CB is not good. All they say is : "WOW IT'S NOT GOOD".

Please give me a valid argument.
[/quote]
Please, give me [i]a[/i] cb and I'll give you a valid argument.

Edited April 8, 2011 by William Bonney

[Borsche]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1302300569' post='2687099']
DoomHouse isn't a family of poor kids.
[/quote]

GOONS is a family of poor kids.

[Monster]

[quote name='The Crimson King' timestamp='1302280926' post='2686900']
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]

Already said that NPO didn't have a treaty chain at the time because such an arrangment was actively facilitated.


[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.
[/quote]
Preempting wouldn't have been necessary if unexpected actors didn't switch sides as the hand of NPO's allies would have been forced earlier. YOu've mentioned oA chains and that's one way of getting into a war despite not having any treaty link into it the night. All that has to be done is for one ally to use a defense clause to change the map drastically.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

The war wasn't going to be over until VE and co. felt they had done enough damage or achieved goal x, seeing as it still took time after the preempt for that front to peace out, rather than it peacing out right away. It didn't make sense for us to wait for NPO whenever it was ready given by that point, peace moding was already being implemented as a strategy and more nations would have gotten into PM by the tie any such declaration occurred. Not preempting would have allowed substantially more preparation.

[quote]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.[/quote]

Most of the alliances that were pulled off the Polar front were fighting polar allies that were just sticking it out in a moral sense rather than it being an actual diversion of resources, so ODN for example sitting on UINE was never going to happen and having C&G stay on Polar solely wasn't going to make them quit sooner. The diehards for Polar were going to stay in until the end regardless of the fact that they could no longer cause damage so C&G being stationary would have had no inherent benefit whatsoever. It was completed in a numerical sense on the side fronts as NpO allies weren't in the best shape at that point, but peace hadn't been agreed to.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

Not really. Like I've said before, NPO not entering entirely was not seriously considered because it would have made zero sense for them not to and there was enough reason to believe they would. To be honest, a war against NPO on virtually any CB even if it was incredibly stretched would have been popular. So if there was an assurance that NPO would not enter, it would not make sense to pursue them when you'd get less flak for going after them on anything seemingly traditional. Let's say instead of NpO of getting attacked based on the Lennox thing, it was NPO or if a similar thing had happened after the Polar war was over. Few people would give a !@#$ because NPO is substantially less popular than Polar. I mean I don't think you seem to understand what kind of things you could go after NPO on, even 6 million dollars in aid would be enough. So let's say NPO posts an announcement saying "we will not chain into anything," then there is no reason to hit them at that point because when NPO can get rolled on its own later on with less people caring because it wasn't tied to Polar getting hit which had already stirred bad feelings. There would be no incentive to do it. In fact, I think if an actual out of the blue attack occurred on NPO, it would be substantially more popular than attacking Polar and then getting NPO or at the very least not elicit as many negative reactions due to the disparity in interest groups.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Antoine Roquentin

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='William Bonney' timestamp='1302302561' post='2687110']
I don't know about him (or her?) but I don't agree with DH's justifications because they didn't have any, not because I don't agree with them (obviously I am aware that is a paradox in itself, so it must come natural to you). Does TOP still have an embassy with us by the way? I remember seeing one, unless it was just a fantasy.[/quote]
To my knowledge our embassy is still there, however, I imagine it is nothing more than an old building that has fallen into decay. Perhaps someone has been over there recently but the job as the Ambassador to the NPO has been vacant for a couple of years now.

[the rebel]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1302303851' post='2687123']
In fact, I think if an actual out of the blue attack occurred on NPO, it would be substantially more popular than attacking Polar and then getting NPO or at the very least not elicit as many negative reactions due to the disparity in interest groups.
[/quote]

Say what? thats what DH did an out of the blue attack and it hasnt been popular no matter what spin has been added to it, you know your doing it wrong when people who have no love for NPO hell in some cases dislike them are against this war... you living on the same world as the rest of us?

[Indian Bob]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1302303851' post='2687123']
Already said that NPO didn't have a treaty chain at the time because such an arrangment was actively facilitated.
[/quote]

Which means there was no treaty chain. The conversation should end there until that situation changed.

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1302303851' post='2687123']
The issue is more alliances coming in. Preempting wouldn't have been necessary if unexpected actors didn't switch sides.
[/quote]

Who jumped sides? I thought most of this was predicated upon Legion's inaction. At least that's what the DoW stated and that's what I've been reading here.

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1302303851' post='2687123']
The war wasn't going to be over until VE and co. felt they had done enough damage or achieved goal x, seeing as it still took time after the preempt for that front to peace out, rather than it peacing out right away. It didn't make sense for us to wait for NPO whenever it was ready given by that point, peace moding was already being implemented as a strategy and more nations would have gotten into PM by the tie any such declaration occurred. Not preempting would have allowed substantially more preparation.[/quote]

Or there just wouldn't have been an escallation. You keep looking at it through the eyes of the paranoid as opposed to looking at what was actually happened and not what you hoped/feared would happen.

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1302303851' post='2687123']
Most of the alliances that were pulled off the Polar front were fighting polar allies that were just sticking it out in a moral sense rather than it being an actual diversion of resources, so ODN for example sitting on UINE was never going to happen and having C&G stay on Polar solely wasn't going to make them quit sooner. The diehards for Polar were going to stay in until the end regardless of the fact that they could no longer cause damage so C&G being stationary would have had no inherent benefit whatsoever. It was completed in a numerical sense on the side fronts as NpO allies weren't in the best shape at that point, but peace hadn't been agreed to.

Not really. Like I've said before, NPO not entering entirely was not seriously considered because it would have made zero sense for them not to and there was enough reason to believe they would. To be honest, a war against NPO on virtually any CB even if it was incredibly stretched would have been popular. So if there was an assurance that NPO would not enter, it would not make sense to pursue them when you'd get less flak for going after them on anything seemingly traditional. Let's say instead of NpO of getting attacked based on the Lennox thing, it was NPO or if a similar thing had happened after the Polar war was over. Few people would give a !@#$ because NPO is substantially less popular than Polar. I mean I don't think you seem to understand what kind of things you could go after NPO on, even 6 million dollars in aid would be enough. So NPO let's say NPO posts an announcement saying "we will not chain into anything," then there is no reason to hit them at that point because when NPO can get rolled on its own later on with less people caring because it wasn't tied to Polar, there would be no incentive too. In fact, I think if an actual out of the blue attack occurred on NPO, it would be substantially more popular than attacking Polar and then getting NPO or at the very least not elicit as many negative reactions due to the disparity in interest groups.
[/quote]

Seriously? Your argument is that the NpO front was under control and just a matter of working out the surrender terms and that's why you NEEDED to pre-empt an NPO entry? That's pretty funny, you deliberately escalated a war your side had already won just in case it might get escalated. You then go on to say that it would have been easier and better for you to hit NPO out of the blue than to tie it in any way to the NpO war, yet you chose to tie it to the NpO war. Do you always do the opposite of what your own reasonig tells you is the right move?

[Monster]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1302304596' post='2687129']
Say what? thats what DH did an out of the blue attack and it hasnt been popular no matter what spin has been added to it, you know your doing it wrong when people who have no love for NPO hell in some cases dislike them are against this war... you living on the same world as the rest of us?
[/quote]

Bad feelings were already raised in relation to Polar being attacked. By "out of the blue" I mean completely unrelated to any war going at the time without the context. It would be a lie to say that NPO wasn't attacked within the context of the PB-NpO war. Of course, organizing an actual out of the blue attack has problems of its own, but in the event such a thing could be planned it'd be more alliances than just DH fan going in, making it less prone to criticism.

[quote name='Indian Bob' timestamp='1302304775' post='2687132']
Which means there was no treaty chain. The conversation should end there until that situation changed.
[/quote]
Why if it was being actively played that way? There is no reason to go along.
[quote]

Who jumped sides? I thought most of this was predicated upon Legion's inaction. At least that's what the DoW stated and that's what I've been reading here.
[/quote]

Legion's inaction is one component. The ability to gather more alliances before NPO's entry is another one. Some alliances that weren't expected to go in for Polar did so. I can specify: if Ragnarok didn't unexpectedly jump in for Polar and Nueva Vida didn't unexpectedly join in for STA, there would have likely been no preempt. Simple as that.

[quote]
Or there just wouldn't have been an escallation. You keep looking at it through the eyes of the paranoid as opposed to looking at what was actually happened and not what you hoped/feared would happen.
[/quote]

Why not? I don't understand why it makes more sense to assume they're not going to go in when things are being done in a manner that suggests positioning and intel that was received was confirming it. Essentially, the position you're arguing from is that for some reason even with the risk of NPO entering still be there, they should have been given the benefit of the doubt no matter what the consequences would be.


[quote]Seriously? Your argument is that the NpO front was under control and just a matter of working out the surrender terms and that's why you NEEDED to pre-empt an NPO entry? That's pretty funny, you deliberately escalated a war your side had already won just in case it might get escalated. You then go on to say that it would have been easier and better for you to hit NPO out of the blue than to tie it in any way to the NpO war, yet you chose to tie it to the NpO war. Do you always do the opposite of what your own reasonig tells you is the right move?
[/quote]

No, I'm saying that due to the shape the particular opponents of C&G were in by the time they entered on the NPO front, it wasn't affecting the Polar front by that time. edit: I'll clarify it further since you're not taking basic facts into account: just because UINE, FAR, tLW, and DRAGON were vastly outnumbered by C&G doesn't mean every theater of the Polar front was absolutely won. C&G had gone in against a smaller set of alliances and had an advantage from when they declared. You have to remember NPO's allies waited a week to go in after NPO was attacked. You're twisting my words to match your own rhetoric, which is clever, but poorly conceived. Yes, it probably would have been easier to hit NPO out of the blue at some point in the future(in a purely hypothetical sense) and would have been even easier if a similar CB to what was used on Polar came about without tying it to the Polar war if NPO was certainly not going to enter. Did I not make that caveat clear enough? There was a reason NPO itself had been worried about getting attacked when coming out of surrender terms, for example. You're not going to end up agreeing with what I have said, but you're not going to be able to get me to fall into contradictions since I hold a consistent set of beliefs. The impression I get is you think I'm making this up post facto despite having knowledge of the PB-NpO war from a higher level and full knowledge of how the fronts were playing out.

I don't really feel like arguing it since "this again" was a good way to put it, unless you have something new to say you'll probably be able to figure out how I'd respond and be at the same conclusion again. I didn't even expect this thread to go on forever, but I'll resist posting further and if anyone wants to argue it, we can do it via pm.

Edited April 9, 2011 by Antoine Roquentin

[Williambonney]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1302304569' post='2687128']
To my knowledge our embassy is still there, however, I imagine it is nothing more than an old building that has fallen into decay. Perhaps someone has been over there recently but the job as the Ambassador to the NPO has been vacant for a couple of years now.
[/quote]
Perhaps I should take up that job then? I had some friends on pb back when I was active, they taught me some great things about who I should avoid but somehow I lost touch with them. Recntly they've shown me their true colours so I guess it's not a big loss.

[The Crimson King]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1302303851' post='2687123']
Already said that NPO didn't have a treaty chain at the time because such an arrangment was actively facilitated.
[/quote]

So if someone facilitated a manner in which to keep them out of the war (like you said in your DoW) then that means they were going to enter the war...gotcha..



[quote]
Preempting wouldn't have been necessary if unexpected actors didn't switch sides as the hand of NPO's allies would have been forced earlier. YOu've mentioned oA chains and that's one way of getting into a war despite not having any treaty link into it the night. All that has to be done is for one ally to use a defense clause to change the map drastically.
[/quote]

Which we have already covered. Should NPO have entered on an OA or MD or OD or piat or dusted off the Moldalvi Doctrine you were still in a position to not only counter, but basically take them out. For them to go in, their allies would of had to commit in some fashion, therefore removing the already limited back-up they did have on the pre-empt making your ability to take them down even easier. This is the simple fact of the lay of the land at that time. There is no way you can spin NPO's entry at that point into a "threat". So no, there was no way for the map to change drastically.


[quote]
The war wasn't going to be over until VE and co. felt they had done enough damage or achieved goal x, seeing as it still took time after the preempt for that front to peace out, rather than it peacing out right away. It didn't make sense for us to wait for NPO whenever it was ready given by that point, peace moding was already being implemented as a strategy and more nations would have gotten into PM by the tie any such declaration occurred. Not preempting would have allowed substantially more preparation.




Most of the alliances that were pulled off the Polar front were fighting polar allies that were just sticking it out in a moral sense rather than it being an actual diversion of resources, so ODN for example sitting on UINE was never going to happen and having C&G stay on Polar solely wasn't going to make them quit sooner. The diehards for Polar were going to stay in until the end regardless of the fact that they could no longer cause damage so C&G being stationary would have had no inherent benefit whatsoever. It was completed in a numerical sense on the side fronts as NpO allies weren't in the best shape at that point, but peace hadn't been agreed to.
[/quote]

At the time you hit NPO the entire hand had played itself out on the Polar front. There were no other alliances that had yet to enter that would have changed the scope of that front. As you mention elsewhere CnG was lightly deployed and had the ability to move on to more pressing fronts (such as the iFok pile on) and other alliances on your side not in DH would have been more than able to handle any other alliances that may have entered at that point if any choose to do so. For all intents and purposes the chain of events played out over the first week and the war was basically over at that point. It came down to when VE et al wanted to offer Polar peace. Should NPO have entered they could not swing the tide...you still had the firepower out of the war to counter them. Which in turn gets back to the entire point that at the time there was no point in hitting them if the Polar war was the only objective here as is being claimed.

The question you keep dancing around is this...why hit them at all. If they entered then you were in a far better strategic position to take them out then you would have been by preempting, if they did not enter and they would have been so open and prone post war for a take down then you would have been better getting them then. And no, no one is going to buy "they could have got to PM so we had to stop them from doing so". You have already shown that you will not simply walk away here and will fight a war of occupation until they release from PM, so preempt or not we would still be at this point. Of course you can try to sell that you used a lot of political capital and pissed off a lot of people with this move for what amounts to stopping another 10 or so nations in NPO from getting to peace than what they would have been able to get there when they entered via standard means, but that would even further make the expenditure seem worthless in that context given the situation you are facing now anyway.

I would also argue that alliances like FoK and VE clearly see piling on an alliance that is still in a war for what amounts to morale purposes to be something they very much think is a worthwhile expenditure of resources. We need look no further than their current entry on this front to back that up. So one would think they would have appreciated CnG helping them to knock some sense into those alliances that still wanted to do something crazy like leave the field with their treaty partners and not beforehand. Afterall it is a technique that is used to draw a conflict to a close quicker, so one would assume it to be just as successful over there as over here.

[quote]
Not really. Like I've said before, NPO not entering entirely was not seriously considered because it would have made zero sense for them not to and there was enough reason to believe they would. To be honest, a war against NPO on virtually any CB even if it was incredibly stretched would have been popular. So if there was an assurance that NPO would not enter, it would not make sense to pursue them when you'd get less flak for going after them on anything seemingly traditional. Let's say instead of NpO of getting attacked based on the Lennox thing, it was NPO or if a similar thing had happened after the Polar war was over. Few people would give a !@#$ because NPO is substantially less popular than Polar. I mean I don't think you seem to understand what kind of things you could go after NPO on, even 6 million dollars in aid would be enough. So let's say NPO posts an announcement saying "we will not chain into anything," then there is no reason to hit them at that point because when NPO can get rolled on its own later on with less people caring because it wasn't tied to Polar getting hit which had already stirred bad feelings. There would be no incentive to do it. In fact, I think if an actual out of the blue attack occurred on NPO, it would be substantially more popular than attacking Polar and then getting NPO or at the very least not elicit as many negative reactions due to the disparity in interest groups.
[/quote]

This entire thing is the rehashed "they should be thankful we hit them now, cause they would have got rolled later" argument you have been pushing the whole war. First of all this is just dumb, period. So now any alliance that finds themselves not part of the "in crowd" should just go asking for someone to roll them because it is an eventuality regardless of what they do? I mean this exactly what you are pushing here. In fact every alliance ever rolled with a lousy CB was obviously disliked (otherwise they would not have been rolled) and by this twisted logic, they should all be thankful for that because people were just speeding up the inevitable for them.

This argument also begs the question that if there were so many alliances frothing at the mouth for them that badly and they were willing to go so far as a "NoCB" war to fulfill this desire...why were they not hit in the year since they came out of terms? They would have been no more prone after the war then what they were before it, and yet no one moved on them up to this point. I do not doubt it would have taken a flimsy cb, like something crazy like them not taking kindly to a coordinated raid on their color sphere or something off the wall like that, but they still would have to take whatever bait was tossed at them.

[NationRuler]

[quote name='berbers' timestamp='1302255265' post='2686674']
Kind of like all those posts of Umbrella members hailing NPO back in the day would be nice to bust out right about now?
[/quote]

Except that was 3 years ago. I'm talking about the reps it's likely that Legion would pay in the near future. Not 3 years.