The New Grämlins

[shilo]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='08 May 2010 - 10:05 PM' timestamp='1273345522' post='2291568']
Yes, actually it does. You may be too thick to understand this but an unconditional surrender means the complete transfer of sovereignty to the victor.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_(military)
[/quote]
Don't try, many have tried in the last 120 pages or so to explain that to Mathew, he can't understand this concept.

[Shodemofi-NPO]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='08 May 2010 - 02:04 PM' timestamp='1273345472' post='2291564']
So why go through the charade of making them surrender and demilitarize if you don't object to them refusing the terms?

You don't need to negotiate. You can deliver your terms, and make it clear that they won't change. And then IRON/DAWN can make an informed decision on whether they want to accept or not. Making them demilitarize [i]first[/i] is counterproductive, and spawns mistrust in a group that you want to trust you.
[/quote]
This is exactly what I was going to post. Your thought process doesn't make any sense here. Why does IRON need to "unconditionally surrender" (in quotes because Gramlins apparently doesn't think it means what it means) before you can give them terms?

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='08 May 2010 - 07:51 PM' timestamp='1273344655' post='2291550']
Another poster who cant be bothered to take two seconds to verify the first ASSumption that comes to their mind before replying...
[/quote]

Look, I am sure you think you're really smart, that's fine, but the case here is very simple and you're distorting the easy facts. Grämlins believe IRON are criminals and that they are entitled not to negotiate with them while still having them surrender. That's ok, except that neither Grämlins have the right to label someone as criminals (as it was very explicit by the side who won this war, apparently no one has the right to label tech raiders as criminals either) nor all the alliances will have the same "honorable" spirit of the Grämlins. Meaning that, by opening a precedent in this kind of surrender, you're opening the door to other alliances enforcing them with much less noble purposes than Grämlins say they have. If Grämlins can do it, why can't anyone else?

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='08 May 2010 - 07:51 PM' timestamp='1273344655' post='2291550']
IRON and their sympathisers have been whining through this entire thread for someone else to decide to be 'moral police' and come rescue them from the hole they are in, clearly implying this would be good, yet for the Grämlins to simply refuse to give IRON the surrender terms they wanted at the time they wanted them (in a war IRON started with an unprovoked assault let us not forget) makes the Grämlins 'the moral police' and this is bad?
[/quote]

First, the "unprovoked argument" is academic and discussable. Second, that's demagogy. You may say people are crying for a moral police but, the truth is, so far only the Grämlins are acting like such. And a large percent of the people around here would rather Grämlins to just stop than be forced to believe a moral police is necessary.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 May 2010 - 11:01 PM' timestamp='1273341662' post='2291509']
MHS has said the same thing that VE has: come talk to us about it. Nobody has.
[/quote]
You're incorrect regarding MHA, but thats understandable seeing you're incorrect in most of what you've said.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='08 May 2010 - 12:05 PM' timestamp='1273345522' post='2291568']
Yes, actually it does. You may be too thick to understand this but an unconditional surrender means the complete transfer of sovereignty to the victor.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_(military)
[/quote]


I'm glad to see you spent a few minutes on wikipedia to develop an understanding of unconditional surrender.
You have still ignored the fact that no surrendering alliance in the cybververse can be forced to comply with terms. Even on the wikipedia article you linked, the alternative to complying with terms is a return to a state of war. That is the only alternative.

And, indeed, that is the point.
They surrender without being permitted to stipulate any of their own terms to the surrender > They are given orders to follow in order to achieve peace > ...
The only possible next steps are:
A) They comply and peace is achieved.
B) They do not comply and war is resumed.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='shilo' date='08 May 2010 - 12:12 PM' timestamp='1273345934' post='2291571']
Don't try, many have tried in the last 120 pages or so to explain that to Mathew, he can't understand this concept.
[/quote]


Let's try it in reverse.
Please explain to me how you could be forced to comply with any terms GRE stipulates except under the consequence of returning to war?

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 May 2010 - 03:22 PM' timestamp='1273346518' post='2291581']
I'm glad to see you spent a few minutes on wikipedia to develop an understanding of unconditional surrender.
You have still ignored the fact that no surrendering alliance in the cybververse can be forced to comply with terms. Even on the wikipedia article you linked, the alternative to complying with terms is a return to a state of war. That is the only alternative.

And, indeed, that is the point.
They surrender without being permitted to stipulate any of their own terms to the surrender > They are given orders to follow in order to achieve peace > ...
The only possible next steps are:
A) They comply and peace is achieved.
B) They do not comply and war is resumed.
[/quote]

Why not:
You dictate what your requirements for surrender are, telling them that you won't negotiate.
A) They comply, and the war ends.
B) They do not comply, and the war continues.

Your way is completely counterproductive because you are expecting them to make a leap of faith for no real reason.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Lusitan' date='08 May 2010 - 12:14 PM' timestamp='1273346052' post='2291574']
Look, I am sure you think you're really smart, that's fine, but the case here is very simple and you're distorting the easy facts. Grämlins believe IRON are criminals and that they are entitled not to negotiate with them while still having them surrender. That's ok, except that neither Grämlins have the right to label someone as criminals (as it was very explicit by the side who won this war, apparently no one has the right to label tech raiders as criminals either) nor all the alliances will have the same "honorable" spirit of the Grämlins. Meaning that, by opening a precedent in this kind of surrender, you're opening the door to [b]other alliances enforcing them with much less noble purposes than Grämlins say they have. If Grämlins can do it, why can't anyone else?[/b][/quote]

Emphasis mine.
If any alliance enters into such an implied moral contract (such as that to grant quarter to surrendering opponents) and abuses their authority (such as demanding disbandment) then we all have a moral obligation to oppose it with or without treaties.
The alternative is the worst kind of cowardice.


[quote]First, the "unprovoked argument" is academic and discussable. Second, that's demagogy. You may say people are crying for a moral police but, the truth is, so far only the Grämlins are acting like such.[/quote]

So I expect that people should only be asked to join IRON/DAWN to fight Gremlins because we entered with no treaty and not because of anything "morally wrong" that we're supposedly doing? Ironically that is not the case!

[quote] And a large percent of the people around here would rather Grämlins to just stop than be forced to believe a moral police is necessary.
[/quote]

The entire planet has an obligation to uphold moral constants; whether they want to admit it or not.

[Haflinger]

Look, Matthew. Like it or not, a precondition for your government delivering terms to IRON is that IRON decommission its nukes and navy and bring all of its nations out of peace mode.

In other words, you're insisting that they give up their strategic position before discovering what they are going to be forced to do. That is how unconditional surrenders work, of course - except that normally an unconditional surrender is only agreed to by a loser that has no strategic position at all.

That's why I cited Wikipedia, btw - it hit on the key point, and it phrased it in a way that I thought you might be able to understand. If you want, I can get more academic references that say the same thing, but given that you failed to understand the Wikipedia article I'm not sure there's a lot of point to it.

Perhaps you would like to cite a reference for your bizarre understanding of the phrase.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='08 May 2010 - 12:26 PM' timestamp='1273346792' post='2291586']
Why not:
You dictate what your requirements for surrender are, telling them that you won't negotiate.
A) They comply, and the war ends.
B) They do not comply, and the war continues.

Your way is completely counterproductive because you are expecting them to make a leap of faith for no real reason.
[/quote]


They likely wouldn't make such a leap of faith unless they were truly interested in acknowledging culpability for their actions and submitting to the consequences.

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='07 May 2010 - 08:53 PM' timestamp='1273283598' post='2290900']
He is correct.

And yes, that includes your alliance Aeternos, who by the way is rather suited for the task (though I'm not sure of your level of treaty with them).
[/quote]
I asked about a month ago whether we could get released from that term to see if it was even worth bringing it up officially. I received a negative response. Maybe I'll bring it up again now that times may have changed (a month later with elections showing Gre's continued support).

We only have an ODP with IRON too.

[quote name='Delta1212' date='08 May 2010 - 11:50 AM' timestamp='1273337409' post='2291433']
And you know that everyone else is prepared to go fight another war, especially against an alliance that still has a fairly sizeable top tier even if it is dwindling? We just had one of the most damaging wars in the history of the game end a little over a month ago and since then everyone has spent their war chests rebuilding. I still have a big enough one to get by, but even mine is the lowest it has been in over a year, and I was over-prepared compared to the vast majority of the game.[/quote]
You're welcome.

[Shodemofi-NPO]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 May 2010 - 02:33 PM' timestamp='1273347212' post='2291593']
They likely wouldn't make such a leap of faith unless they were truly interested in acknowledging culpability for their actions and submitting to the consequences.
[/quote]
That's kind of what the Easter Sunday Accords were. They got the consequences deemed fair by those they wronged. You, who they didn't wrong at all, somehow think you're more qualified to determine what a fair punishment for them would be. How does that make any sense?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='08 May 2010 - 12:30 PM' timestamp='1273346985' post='2291590']
Look, Matthew. Like it or not, a precondition for your government delivering terms to IRON is that IRON decommission its nukes and navy and bring all of its nations out of peace mode.[/quote]

If it's not too much of a bother, please find where Gremlins government stipulated to IRON how they were to demilitarize? I could be wrong but I don't think it exists.

[quote]In other words, you're insisting that they give up their strategic position before discovering what they are going to be forced to do. That is how unconditional surrenders work, of course - except that normally an unconditional surrender is only agreed to by a loser that has no strategic position at all.[/quote]

And that's the meat of the issue. Unconditional Surrender is predicated on submission.
Also, re: nukes, please see my post a few pages back where I statistically demonstrated that Gremlins nations were still at significant risk of nuclear attack (in excess of 90%) despite any nuclear decomissions.

[quote]That's why I cited Wikipedia, btw - it hit on the key point, and it phrased it in a way that I thought you might be able to understand. If you want, I can get more academic references that say the same thing, but given that you failed to understand the Wikipedia article I'm not sure there's a lot of point to it.[/quote]

Wikipedia can hardly be called academic.
I am open to anybody explaining to me how Gremlins could force IRON to comply with any of our terms. Perhaps you understand something about the rules of engagement [OOC]allowed game dynamics[/OOC] that I don't. From my perspective the only alternative is a continuation of the same war and the same methods.

[quote]Perhaps you would like to cite a reference for your bizarre understanding of the phrase.
[/quote]

I feel that I have already clearly explained my position that IRON/DAWN cannot be forced to comply with anything and that continuing the war is the only possible alternative to their choosing not to comply.
I await your disproof by counter-example.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 May 2010 - 03:33 PM' timestamp='1273347212' post='2291593']
They likely wouldn't make such a leap of faith unless they were truly interested in acknowledging culpability for their actions and submitting to the consequences.
[/quote]

Consequences, as determined by The Gremlins.

It's not the same as a criminal turning himself in. A criminal does so with the knowledge that he will be protected by whatever laws and rights his nation guarantees; if he had no idea what to expect, he would probably keep running. You may feel differently, but IRON fears what you intend to impose. You are allowing that fear to prevent a resolution to the war, when you could easily show them that they have nothing to fear with no cost to yourselves.

Edited May 8, 2010 by Lord Brendan

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='08 May 2010 - 12:36 PM' timestamp='1273347347' post='2291596']
We only have an ODP with IRON too.
[/quote]


I have stated repeatedly that moral obligations exceed treaty obligations.
Plus it should be self-evident that Gremlins wouldn't say you are wrong based solely on your lack of treaties. There are a plethora of other reasons you'd be wrong to intervene on IRON's behalf.

[fuzz227]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 May 2010 - 02:04 PM' timestamp='1273345426' post='2291562']
Yes, poor IRON with their 300+ members being bullied by the 40 evil Gremlins...
[/quote]

To me it is very sad to see an alliance that my own was formed to model, at least in part, fall so far. What do you think of the fact that you have lost sooo many members? At one time, didn't you have more than 100?

Are you expecting that once this is all over, Gre will regain all of the lost respect throughout Planet Bob? I mean, Gre was the most respected alliance at one point and now half the world despises you.

[Heft]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 May 2010 - 12:19 PM' timestamp='1273339122' post='2291469']
An unconditional surrender does not imply acceptance of subsequent terms and never has by any definition.
[/quote]
No, that is exactly what it means.

If they are surrendering, then the war ends and they agree to whatever terms you are putting forward to end the war. If they agree to surrender unconditionally without knowing what those terms are ahead of time, then they are pre-accepting subsequent terms. Yes, they may turn around and decide those subsequent terms are unacceptable and resume the war, but that would be a violation of the surrender agreement. Having the technical ability to violate a surrender agreement does not improve the quality of that surrender agreement in anyway, as they are two entirely unrelated concepts.

What you are describing is not an unconditional surrender, but simply a one-sided dictation of "take it or leave it" terms. These are entirely different things.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='08 May 2010 - 12:39 PM' timestamp='1273347537' post='2291601']
Consequences, as determined by The Gremlins.

It's not the same as a criminal turning himself in. A criminal does so with the knowledge that he will be protected by whatever laws and rights his nation guarantees; if he had no idea what to expect, he would probably keep running. You may feel differently, but IRON fears what you intend to impose. You are allowing that fear to prevent a resolution to the war, when you could easily show them that they have nothing to fear with no cost to yourselves.
[/quote]


It's not as if we have had said IRON will be given no quarter.
If IRON surrendered and we gave them no quarter I would fully expect every upstanding nation on the planet to declare war (including our friends) and they would be morally right in doing so.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='08 May 2010 - 03:05 PM' timestamp='1273345522' post='2291568']
Yes, actually it does. You may be too thick to understand this but an unconditional surrender means the complete transfer of sovereignty to the victor.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_(military)
[/quote]

My GOD after 120 pages Gramlins still don't even know what they are asking for?


Could it be their sheer stupidity in this matter is stemming from a simple lack of comprehension?

Regardless, perhaps its best to look at it this way. If you can generate 120 pages of people telling you you've stepped in it, you might want to consider they just might be on to something.

Edit:

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 May 2010 - 03:42 PM' timestamp='1273347730' post='2291605']
It's not as if we have had said IRON will be given no quarter.
If IRON surrendered and we gave them no quarter I would fully expect every upstanding nation on the planet to declare war (including our friends) and they would be morally right in doing so.
[/quote]

Christ, quit while you are ahead, clearly the Gramlins have no idea about the military and political terminology they are throwing around.

You actually already have offered IRON no quarter by specifically refusing to negotiate with them, and you CAN'T decide no quarter after a surrender because no quarter is what happens instead of surrender.

The term No Quarter holds its roots from refusing to quarter (that is provide quarters for) captured enemy soldiers, therefor you do not accept prisoners. And the associated practice of not negotiating with an enemy since you have no desire to do anything but kill them.

Edited May 8, 2010 by TypoNinja

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Heft' date='08 May 2010 - 12:41 PM' timestamp='1273347683' post='2291604']
No, that is exactly what it means.

If they are surrendering, then the war ends and they agree to whatever terms you are putting forward to end the war. If they agree to surrender unconditionally without knowing what those terms are ahead of time, then they are pre-accepting subsequent terms. Yes, they may turn around and decide those subsequent terms are unacceptable and resume the war, but that would be a violation of the surrender agreement. Having the technical ability to violate a surrender agreement does not improve the quality of that surrender agreement in anyway, as they are two entirely unrelated concepts.

What you are describing is not an unconditional surrender, but simply a one-sided dictation of "take it or leave it" terms. These are entirely different things.
[/quote]


Surrendering is a cessation of hostilities until subsequent terms are satisfied thus ending the war.

Tell me, if a surrendered alliance defaults on their terms does a new war begin (activating all manner of treaties) or has precedent defined it as a continuation of the pre-existing state of war?
Let's take the ESA as an example:
Ignoring the Gremlins involvement, if IRON were in process of paying reps and then said "nevermind, CnG, we're not going to pay you any more" and then CnG attacked IRON... would that be a new war, thus obligating IRON's treaty partners to engage, or would it be a continuation of the existing war catalyzed by IRON's decision not to comply with terms?

That you cannot separate the ideas of "surrender" and "end of war" is the basis of our disagreement.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 May 2010 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1273348127' post='2291614']
Surrendering is a cessation of hostilities until subsequent terms are satisfied thus ending the war.
[/quote]
Cite a source for this definition. It is not correct.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='08 May 2010 - 12:43 PM' timestamp='1273347762' post='2291608']
The term No Quarter holds its roots from refusing to quarter (that is provide quarters for) captured enemy soldiers, therefor you do not accept prisoners. And the associated practice of not negotiating with an enemy since you have no desire to do anything but kill them.
[/quote]

You are precisely correct.
No Quarter for surrendered (or captured) soldiers means you intend to kill them. We don't intend to do that, we intend to give them terms.

Not negotiating does not, at all, imply that you desire or intend to kill them. That's simply not true and I cannot accept that you believe it.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 May 2010 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1273348127' post='2291614']
Surrendering is a cessation of hostilities until subsequent terms are satisfied thus ending the war.
[/quote]

No surrender is; To relinquish possession or control of to another because of demand or compulsion.

In this case they relinquish specific aspects of their sovereignty.
[quote]
Tell me, if a surrendered alliance defaults on their terms does a new war begin (activating all manner of treaties) or has precedent defined it as a continuation of the pre-existing state of war?
[/quote]

I cannot recall this being tested and granted precedent yet, Echelon repudiated their terms, but it turns out nobody gave a !@#$. That's the only one recently I recall.

[quote]
That you cannot separate the ideas of "surrender" and "end of war" is the basis of our disagreement.
[/quote]

No, your ignorance of the actual meaning of the terms you are employing is the problem. Ends of wars come with a surrender, because the exact nature of the surrender is the conditions under which the victorious party will agree to stop making war upon the defeated. These two actions are intricately related, and do not happen independently. Some surrenders are minor, or even surrenders in name only, some are complex and involved. But the events happen together, the surrender conditions are the conditions under witch the war ends.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='08 May 2010 - 12:52 PM' timestamp='1273348324' post='2291615']
Cite a source for this definition. It is not correct.
[/quote]

Emphasis mine.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surrender

Main Entry: 1sur·ren·der
Pronunciation: \sə-ˈren-dər\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): sur·ren·dered; sur·ren·der·ing \-d(ə-)riŋ\
Etymology: Middle English surrendren, from surrendre, noun
Date: 15th century

transitive verb 1 a : [b]to yield to the power, control, or possession of another upon compulsion or demand <surrendered the fort>[/b] b : to give up completely or agree to forgo especially in favor of another
2 a : to give (oneself) up into the power of another especially as a prisoner b : to give (oneself) over to something (as an influence)intransitive verb : to give oneself up into the power of another : yield



When a fugitive surrenders, he is then held culpable for his actions. He is not released until such time that he has satisfied terms and made restitution. Following that:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/restitution
Main Entry: res·ti·tu·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌres-tə-ˈtü-shən, -ˈtyü-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English restitucioun, from Anglo-French, from Latin restitution-, restitutio, from restituere to restore, from re- + statuere to set up — more at statute
Date: 14th century

1 : an act of restoring or a condition of being restored: as a : a restoration of something to its rightful owner b : a making good of or giving an equivalent for some injury
2 : [b]a legal action serving to cause restoration of a previous state[/b]


Surrendering is not the end of the process; it is the beginning.
Should a surrendered individual fail or refuse to comply with terms, there is no restitution and thus no restoration to the previous "pre-war" state.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 May 2010 - 03:52 PM' timestamp='1273348337' post='2291616']
You are precisely correct.
No Quarter for surrendered (or captured) soldiers means you intend to kill them. We don't intend to do that, we intend to give them terms.
[/quote]

You are hilarious, you just said I was correct then proceeded to misuse the term again, in the exact manner I'd spelled out for you as being wrong.

[quote]
Not negotiating does not, at all, imply that you desire or intend to kill them. That's simply not true and I cannot accept that you believe it.
[/quote]

I'm sorry, but that just makes you delusional, its not even a matter of opinion or misunderstanding. Refusing to negotiate with the enemy means an intent to wipe them out. There is no interpretation room there except perhaps if you wish to split hairs on extermination vs wars of occupation.