The New Grämlins

[Zangmonkey]

quote max reached



[quote name='bigwoody' date='13 May 2010 - 09:42 AM' timestamp='1273768947' post='2297009']
You. That is why you've started the pariah act already.

In my estimation, you tried to use the combined might of CnG and its coalition to impose unconditional surrender in the ESA negotiations. However, you pushed a bit too hard and they left you on the battlefield. Suddenly without the might backing you anymore, you still had decent odds with your upper tier dominance. However, your position is so abhorrent that your alliance is falling apart from the inside, and now you no longer have might, nor right.

For you to now claim it has always been this way is disingenuous, the simpler explanation that you tried to use others to get your way and failed spectacularly fits much better.
[/quote]

Your estimation is incorrect.
In many cases we specifically asked our friends to disengage from GRE's effort so that they would not have to appear to inherently support something they were unsure about.

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' date='13 May 2010 - 09:47 AM' timestamp='1273769252' post='2297013']
Words do not change their meaning because you want them to.
[/quote]

I have outlined the process and asked the "dictionary brigade" to tell me what term they would use to define it. I'm still waiting for a good, inclusive response.

I have also outlined specifically why the term [b]cannot[/b] mean what you purport it means. I am awaiting effective rebuttal to that as well.

[quote name='shilo' date='13 May 2010 - 10:10 AM' timestamp='1273770618' post='2297025']
A simply dumb attempt to paint those nations as cowards. Your second try, still not getting better.
[/quote]

If we agree on that, am I still wrong?

Edited May 13, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 May 2010 - 12:36 PM' timestamp='1273772189' post='2297040']
Even if your examples were valid, I said obligation to oppose, not obligation to attack.
Furthermore, we engaged and declared this war with a specific purpose and we're fighting for that aim.
By our calculation, IRON was the primary driver in the unwarranted attack. We oppose the entire unwarranted attack by opposing a the primary perpetrator.
This is what I said previously, that I personally don't really care about DAWN.[/quote]

according to several of your posts, you contend that many already oppose IRON but are too scared to do anything. thus, it appears that you feel that oppose=attack. that is until it is brought about that Gremlins should be attacking more than just IRON/DAWN, then all of a sudden it reverts back to just oppose.


[quote]No, we declared war to defend our friends from an unwarranted attack. The military attack on our friends has ceased but the perpetrators have not acknowledged it was unwarranted; thus by our analysis the mission is not accomplished.[/quote]

your analysis is not the one that has ever mattered though. that is what you can't get through your head. you (as in Gremlins/Ram) are unimportant and your thoughts on these matters do not matter.


[quote]I'm talking about unwarranted attacks... unless this argument is about a dictionary where unwarranted and pre-emptive mean the same thing....[/quote]

who is to say if such attacks were unwarranted? i could get behind the idea that pre-emptive attacks should be viewed as "wrong" in CN i guess, but considering how heavily CnG was allied to SF and others in the war, unwarranted is a bit much. yes, i know CnG states "look at the FoB exodus and look at the political pressure to end this war" but given that CnG alliances as a whole value their friends far more than infrastructure, once TIDTT got involved, it would have been a matter of time (most likely seconds) before CnG got involved. so while the pre-emptive attack was ridiculously stupid, it was not unwarranted unless CnG can prove 100% that had TIDTT gone in via the treaty chain, they would not have backed their allies up at all.

[quote]An unconditional surrender cannot possibly necessitate agreement to subsequent unknown terms. There is no way around this and none of my opposition have successfully argued the opposite.
Turning yourself in is a preliminary step to getting a "plea". When a fugitive turns themselves in they are not inherently pleading guilty to all charges; only presenting themselves for their actions.[/quote]

i think the issue here is, you have no clue what unconditional surrender means and you are mixing the definition of unconditional surrender with courtroom actions. so either you want to treat this like a courtcase in which IRON/DAWN do not unconditionally surrender but simply turn themselves in, or you want to treat this like a war where IRON/DAWN unconditionally surrender. i think you are confusing yourself by attempting to have them do both.


[quote]Your argumentum ad antiquitatem is invalid.[/quote]

wow. another attempt at thinking latin somehow makes my argument invalid. how about actually refuting it instead of speaking some fancy latin phrase that i won't even look up. this makes you look stupid not me.


[quote]I am saying that is no way is it possible for unconditional surrender to be construed into "accept all subsequently delivered terms."
The basis for unconditional surrender, as I have repeated over and over and over again is that one party turns themselves in.
Were the roles reversed and Gremlins as clearly culpable as IRON I would have no problems doing that.

Nowhere have I asserted that the morally right party gets to do whatever they want.
[b]Nowhere.[/b]
The morally deficient party turns themselves in. The Gremlins will quarter them and present terms; IRON will either agree and comply or reject them.[/quote]

except that unconditional surrender is the acceptance of all subsequent terms. your basis is completely wrong. your basis is for law not war. those are two distinct entities and mixing them together does not allow you to ignore actual definitions and make up your own instead.

Actually, you have stated several times that the morally right party can do as they please. your actions state this. you think Gremlins is morally right, thus they are capable of extending this war way beyond the time the [b]actual[/b] aggrieved party has ended it. you have stated that you are allowed to demand unconditional surrender because you are morally right. you have stated that IRON is not allowed to negotiate because you are morally right. The only right IRON has in this war is either to accept the terms or continue with the war until they are ready to accept the terms.

the key to all of that, is negotiations. according to you, the morally wrong side does not have the right to negotiate, which means the morally right side can basically do as they please since without negotiations being allowed, there is no way for the defeated side to get better terms. so it is do as the morally right side says or just stay in war until the morally wrong side caves.

basically, this is every single other war, minus the ability of the losing side to be capable of negotiations. so all this talk of new is wrong, this was never new especially since ya'lls definition of unconditional surrender is a mix of ceasefire and regular surrender.


[quote]The process of unconditional surrender has nothing to do with Gremlins. It has only to do with IRON, as a morally deficient party, turning themselves in. That The Gremlins are the only one standing and insisting that IRON do so is circumstantial.[/quote]

the fact that Gremlins are the only ones standing and doing this is the key. no other alliance including the aggrieved parties did not feel this was necessary. [b]ONLY[/b] Gremlins have. all this talk of "i know others are opposed just scared" is pure BS. currently, why would they be scared when in fact, none of IRON/DAWN allies really could do much should others join Gremlins. Hell, as we have seen with Gremlins, those paper (or lack of) treaties could very well ensure that alliances joining Gremlins can't be touched. even if those alliances could be attacked, most of IRON/DAWN allies are paying reps and trying to rebuild. so i have no clue why you think anyone actually agrees with you (alliance wise, individuals mean nothing unless they are willing to join your alliance).


[quote]Unconditional Surrender can only mean one thing: to surrender without conditions.
It cannot mean that the surrendering party inherently agrees to all subsequently offered terms.[/quote]

wrong.

[quote]Thus, if Gremlins were ever as clearly culpable for wrongdoing as IRON I would have no problem surrendering unconditionally.[/quote]

lucky for you no one else is morally bankrupt enough to make you surrender unconditionally.


[quote]I don't follow you here.
[/quote]

you kept stating that the only way Gremlins would or should accept unconditional surrender was if it was under the same terms that Gremlins are giving IRON/DAWN. so i simply said, the only way it should be under the same terms as given in this situation is for Gremlins to have done the exact same thing as IRON/DAWN. otherwise, how can the same terms be applied to actions that may be more morally deficient or even less morally deficient, unless Gremlins believe that the same punishment should be given to someone who has killed 37 people and someone who has stolen $100.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 May 2010 - 12:37 PM' timestamp='1273772220' post='2297041']
Complete nonsense.
I'll propose a hyperbole:

Whether or not somebody somewhere (such as that man) thinks it's acceptable is completely irrelevant to the fact that he is committing an absolute moral atrocity.[/quote]

back in the day, this was actually not seen as morally wrong. (ooc: really, in medieval times, pillaging and raping a village and their people was seen as the victorious armies right. heck human sacrifices were normal at one point including infants, children, virgins, and so on. so moral absolutism is a changing thing and requires all or the vast majority to agree to it)


[quote]Of course not, that's an ad populum fallacy and I have opposed that sort of logic here repeatedly when people have said "everybody thinks Gremlins are wrong; therefore you are wrong."[/quote]

or your whole logic of "the Gremlins are right because the Gremlins say they are right" is a fallacy...

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='13 May 2010 - 11:54 AM' timestamp='1273769642' post='2297018']
That doesn't have anything to see with the fact that all the tops from IRON are too scared/value too much their pixels to get out of dove and fight.
[/quote]

were you this loud when Athens/co used the same tactic back in Dec? cuz i clearly remember being told to hit PM because i was over a certain NS and in IAA which is allied to Athens. since RoK was involved and iirc MA is allied to RoK, MA would have been told the same strategy. so does this mean ya'll were too scared/value to much their pixels to have gotten out of dove and fight the massive upper tier that we (as in Athens/RoK and their allies) were gonna face?


[quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' date='13 May 2010 - 12:56 PM' timestamp='1273773374' post='2297063']
It is sort of confusing to me to see folks say that the Grämlins are holding IRON and DAWN in neverending war or are drawing out the conflict. Fact of the matter is, IRON could blitz them today and bring this to an end much faster than what time it would take for it to end by way of Grämlins recanting and saying "no mas".

IRON you certainly have more than enough friends to ensure that the rebuild from the blitz and subsequent curbstomp wont be too long drawn. There is also the famed billion dollar club. End it now. It would also be somewhat satisfying to you, to kick them to the roadside after they held you at war for so long.

What do you guys want here? An end to the war? Satisfaction? It is within reach, right? They are eroded, middle order smashed, fillipino heroes all but dead and the PR campaign is done and all credibility they had, shot. What??!! What are you doing here?
[/quote]

really, so those 8 100k NS nations that Gremlins have would not just thrash through IRON's upper tiers should they do just this? then what? I do believe that IRON/DAWN are using strategy and tactics, something i would have thought that SF/their allies members would know a thing or two about but it seems that some of their members schooling was found lacking.

sure they could do that and cause some damage and hope and pray that it works versus the plan they have already made that will take a while longer but will actually work. Not to mention, IRON/DAWN have allies that are currently paying reps and/or trying to rebuild themselves. so sure they could blitz and then get their allies to help rebuild them, but that would be selfish since their allies are rebuilding their own alliances currently. not to mention, the ensuing damage would be much high should they blitz than drag a Gre nation or two down at a time.

so, what IRON/DAWN are doing is smart, what you and that Kraywhatever from MA want is stupid.

Edited May 15, 2010 by Dochartaigh

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 May 2010 - 02:22 PM' timestamp='1273774907' post='2297073']
I have outlined the process and asked the "dictionary brigade" to tell me what term they would use to define it. I'm still waiting for a good, inclusive response.[/quote]
It is not my job to tell you what words to use. (Although I can think of at least one that's far closer to what [I think] you intend.) If you choose to use the wrong one, however, expect to be called on it.

An example: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? (The answer is four, since [i]calling[/i] a tail a leg does not make it so.)
[quote]I have also outlined specifically why the term [b]cannot[/b] mean what you purport it means. I am awaiting effective rebuttal to that as well.[/quote]
Again, you don't get to decide what words mean. But please, continue to blame everyone else for your alliance's poor command of the English language.

[shilo]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 May 2010 - 08:22 PM' timestamp='1273774907' post='2297073']

If we agree on that, am I still wrong?
[/quote]
What?

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='14 May 2010 - 12:23 AM' timestamp='1273776779' post='2297091']

really, so those 8 100k NS nations that Gremlins have would not just thrash through IRON's upper tiers should they do just this? then what? I do believe that IRON/DAWN are using strategy and tactics, something i would have thought that SF/their allies members would know a thing or two about but it seems that some of their members schooling was found lacking.
[/quote]

You know what? Go ahead do what you are doing, !@#$%*ing and moaning about it all day long. You so blind with this that you cant see whos for you and who isnt. Lash out against anyone that posts here. All i see is folks saying how Grämlins all done for and busted. How they are on the point where you are going to be handing out terms to them? Go on do it some more. While IRON has their nations sit in hippy and lose out that way. Do you think you are going to make the Grämlins say uncle this way? nah, dont bother answering that. Forget i said anything. After-all a SF alliance member wont have anything worthwhile to say to you , right?

[shahenshah]

[quote name='The AUT' date='13 May 2010 - 07:17 PM' timestamp='1273760207' post='2296950']
Most of the Gremlins middle tier that's getting hit are the Fillipino Heroes. I don't know if they're brave or if they're completely oblivious to the fact they're being used by Ramirus. Either way they're going to be out of the picture, soon.
[/quote]

One of them thinks we DoWed on FH, his/her proof is the nation DOWs since the end of greater war.

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 May 2010 - 01:37 PM' timestamp='1273772220' post='2297041']
Are you saying you think Gremlins has a valid CB to DoW those alliances?
We were never at war with them. We are opposing the principle presently by seeking IRON's allocution.
[/quote]
No, [i]you[/i] are saying you think you have as much of a valid CB. You are opposed to pre-emptive attacks, right? They pre-emptively attacked.

Keep slowly twisting everything that you say. Eventually, it will all be for naught anyway.

Let me put it in terms you understand. Maybe your own posts would help.
[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 03:44 PM' timestamp='1273607046' post='2295001']
The entire cyberverse is victimized if IRON is permitted peace without an allocution.
That The Gremlins are the only ones putting themselves at risk to demonstrate this is circumstantial.
[/quote]
In case you haven't noticed, [u]there were other alliances in the coalition[/u]. Heck, even you guys are victimized if they escape without an allocation.

Perhaps you should have said "The entire cyberverse is victimized if TIDFTT is permitted peace without an allocation."
You can't carry a line of logic out for only a single alliance as part of a group. It's all of us did wrong and deserve allocation, or none of us did wrong, and none of us deserve an allocation.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 04:13 PM' timestamp='1273608794' post='2295053']
All nations on the planet have a right to stand up for what is morally right. What's more, they have an [b]obligation[/b] to do so.

IRON are "criminals" because they assert the right, and exercise the ability, to attack with no valid reason.
[/quote]

You have an [b]obligation[/b] to DoW the rest of the coalition. They are "criminals" because the assert the right, and exercise the ability, to attack with no valid reason.

See where I'm going with this? I could pull up more of your posts if you would prefer.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 May 2010 - 02:22 PM' timestamp='1273774907' post='2297073']

You have no idea whether or not we're going to ask for monetary reparations.
[/quote]

This is incorrect, we are able to draw conclusions of your intent based on actions. Had you not intended inflict terms that you know were objectionable it would not be necessary to pull this bait and switch with this farce of an attempt at unconditional surrender.

[quote]
Furthermore, I think I've demonstrated that we don't want to "force" anything out of them. Nor could we.
[/quote]

Well that's pretty definitive right there. It forces me to ask for the 4th time, since you still haven't answered the question. "Why are you still at war?"
[quote]
That, and only that, is the basis of unconditional surrender.
[/quote]

You really need to clue in that when using a military term that is pre-existing to your usage of it, you do not in fact get to redefine it. This term has a specific definition and no matter how loudly the gramlins hum while sticking your fingers in your ears this definition will not change.

[quote]
It is the dominant method to best ascertain sincerity of an allocution.
[/quote]

Its a god damned farce is what it is. It is a pure ego trip by you and yours, and you've somehow missed the fact that your over inflated ego (as an alliance, having interacted with only a limited number of gramlins I'm not prepared to speculate on individuals) isn't in the slightest bit justified.

Even aside from that, you've completely missed the part where you are attempting to wring a confession out of someone with the threat of force (more might makes right), even had IRON forgotten where they kept both their testicles and their dignity and agreed to your terms, there is still no way to validate the sincerity of their declaration.

[quote]
I have outlined the process and asked the "dictionary brigade" to tell me what term they would use to define it.
[/quote]

Ahh thats good, the dictionary brigade. While normally I'd agree with you since most definition nitpicking is a matter of semantics rather than actual meaning, in this case Gre (and you) have misused so many words and phrases in such an egregious manner that they require clarification.

[quote]
I'm still waiting for a good, inclusive response.
[/quote]

You haven't gotten one because you have not presented a coherent position for your alliance yet. All we know, from the mass of contradiction, is that whatever the hell you want it inst unconditional surrender.

[quote]
I have also outlined specifically why the term [b]cannot[/b] mean what you purport it means. I am awaiting effective rebuttal to that as well.
[/quote]

You've fallen into an easy trap, don't feel too bad many do, I've had to explain this to many people. You've looked at the word "unconditional" and the word "surrender". You know what both of these words mean, so one would assume both of these words together would also have a perfectible meaning.

But you forgot this is English. It is not a finely crafted language, our rules and structures are guidelines at best most of the time. For every rules there are exceptions, and we come up with ridiculous constructs of words neighbor and weigh. Rather than create our own words for new concepts like the French would we are quite satisfied swiping whatever the word was in the language we found it in.

English is not a polished language, its typically not well crafted. We ambush other languages in dark alleys and mug them for shiny looking adverbs.

As a result of this, sometimes phrases take on counter intuitive meanings when seen by an uninformed viewer. It is not your fault you've gotten the term wrong, it is your fault you've failed to understand why, or what its true meaning is.

[shahenshah]

TypoNinja, an apology was offered in one of the meetings, it was not deemed necessary nor Gramlins objected to that nor requested it from us at the time, so I do not think they're looking for an apology.

*ninja edit: Nobody requested the apology from us if my memory serves me right, it was offered on our own initiative.

Edited May 13, 2010 by shahenshah

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='shilo' date='13 May 2010 - 07:10 PM' timestamp='1273770618' post='2297025']
A simply dumb attempt to paint those nations as cowards. Your second try, still not getting better.
[/quote]

A simply dumb attemp to deny an objective reality.

I don't need to paint them. They have painted themselves already.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Krashnaia

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='shahenshah' date='13 May 2010 - 04:08 PM' timestamp='1273781289' post='2297155']
TypoNinja, an apology was offered in one of the meetings, it was not deemed necessary nor Gramlins objected to that nor requested it from us at the time, so I do not think they're looking for an apology.
[/quote]

Well that's interesting, since the last ten pages contain Matthew asserting they requires a statement from IRON concerning your culpability and that unconditional surrender was their means of assuring that it was sincere.

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='13 May 2010 - 04:09 PM' timestamp='1273781372' post='2297157']
A simply dumb attemp to deny an objective reality.

I don't need to paint them. They have painted themselves already.
[/quote]

Bravery and Stupidity are not the same things. They frequently overlap when pursued by the uninformed however.

Edited May 13, 2010 by TypoNinja

[Derantol]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 May 2010 - 11:22 AM' timestamp='1273774907' post='2297073']
I have outlined the process and asked the "dictionary brigade" to tell me what term they would use to define it. I'm still waiting for a good, inclusive response.

I have also outlined specifically why the term [b]cannot[/b] mean what you purport it means. I am awaiting effective rebuttal to that as well.
[/quote]

War > Surrender/Cease Fire/Demilitarization? > Terms > Restitution (Compliance) > Peace

This is your process, for those who haven't seen it, with the extra bit of cease fire/demilitarization added on with the surrender, although I'm not entirely sure where it goes. Essentially, it starts with war, like most surrender terms do. Then it moves on to the surrender stage where one side goes to the other and says "We want to surrender. What do we do?". Then the winning side puts terms out on the table for the other side to accept or not, and if those terms are not accepted, war resumes. I'm not sure exactly where the war stopped (I think at step 2), but it did. Then, once terms have been accepted, restitution can begin. Once the restitution is complete, Peace has been obtained.

Before I move on to my definition here, I'd like to as MPK to describe this process again in great detail. I think I more or less got it.

Now, as I understand it, the cyberverse general functions by a model like the following:

War > Surrender > Terms > Cease Fire/Peace > Restitution

Step 1: War. Pretty clear. Then, one side goes to other and says "We want to surrender." At this point, terms are negotiated. Once they have been agreed upon, war stops and peace is had. *After* the peace, restitution is achieved, through extended periods of demilitarization and reparations payments in most cases.

There's a few key things to recognize here.

Firstly, I'm using Surrender as MPK has been using it: desire to end the war. Surrender still has to be accepted by the victorious party, else we wouldn't have extended wars as soon as it was clear which side would win. And in this case, Gramlins are expecting us to also admit wrongdoing during this step. Normally, terms come at the Terms step, but there isn't anything that states that necessity. So, Surrender can be defined as the process during which one side seeks to begin peace negotiations and the other side either accepts or refuses it.

Second, notice the difference of where Cease Fire is placed. Personally, I don't see anything inherently wrong about putting cease fire on the surrender stage. Strategically speaking, it may or may not be a good idea in any given situation, but MPK has made it clear that strategic moves aren't particularly important (this isn't a jab, I just can't figure out a good way to phrase it), with the exception of having us demilitarize at the same time. The inclusion of the demilitarization during this step makes me uneasy, despite MPK's repeated assurances that we would hardly be placed at a disadvantage. I believe you stated that it would be a show of intent to follow through with the eventual peace terms? I understand that, but what have we done that makes you doubt our willingness to follow through? One of the values that I find runs strongly in IRON is the desire to follow through on any official agreement we've made; take Karma for instance. We canceled on NPO at the beginning, yes, but we still came to war because we had made the agreement to do so. I nearly left during those first few days, simply for that reason. I was not the only one. Several did leave, only to come back once we actually went to war for them. This is also the reason we felt so back-stabbed in Karma when ODN canceled on us. Despite whatever reasons might have caused the cancellation, the Mutual Defense portion wasn't honored at that point. You can question the moral value of our attack on CnG, and perhaps you're correct in doing that. However, there's no reason to expect us not to follow an agreement that has been reached. And to be clear, that's how we look at this situation; surrender (commonly understood, not the definition I gave above) means the end of war, whether you (MPK) think it does or not. Once we've surrendered, we're obligated to take whatever terms you give us. And we'd rather take draconian terms that we agreed to than break that agreement, because whether you like us or hate us, we want to have as spotless a track record as we can in that regard, and that can be respected by anyone from either side. I hope that sheds some light on why we resist the idea of "unconditional surrender" with such vigor.

Last, I want to look at the Peace/Restitution bit. In MPK's method, this means that the FAN war was one long war, since NPO still had them under terms when they redeclared. That particular bit more a semantical thing than any real issue, but I wanted to make that distinction. Really, the two are part of the same step, and it's a pretty fuzzy line as to how it is implemented. However, I view the ESA as having followed the second model; there is no demilitarization, so they expect us to make our own decisions now, barring those concerning reparations payments.



As far as why the term is defined that way, it's simply an OOC historical thing. Historically, the phrase unconditional surrender means that the surrendering party agrees to any surrender terms handed down. It's not a matter of what the word literally means, as there are plenty of phrases that are commonly used as metaphors for completely unrelated subjects (I'll point out the "birds and the bees" phrase as an example). That's why it means what it means, and that's why people are saying that you're wrong. That being said, this particular part of the argument doesn't matter, as the above argument deals with what actually matters, not what we call it.

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='13 May 2010 - 10:13 PM' timestamp='1273781568' post='2297160']Bravery and Stupidity are not the same things. They frequently overlap when pursued by the uninformed however.[/quote]

Neither are cowardice and prudence. But the feeble-minded get confused by that mask pretty easily.

[Grayshadow]

Matthew PK. You contend that doing a pre-emptive strike is a "absolute" morale wrong. I and much of Planet Bob by the posts here, contend that you have no such authority and the only one with such authority is the Great "ADMIN" that created this universe. I have not seen where he died and named you or anyone in Gramlins his successor. Did I miss the memo? Perhaps since you seem to think he has you should post a link to your authority in this matter.

Until you do I will just have to disagree with you on this matter as I believe my morals are as good and as valid as yours or anyone in Gramlins. In fact I believe mine are better. However unlike you, I don't contend that they are absolute. I contend that they are mine. Your opinion seems to be that a pre-emptive strike is morally wrong. Your entire position that the attack on CnG had no valid reason and was unwarranted is based on your opinion not any absolute moral law handed down by the great “ADMIN“. You are entitled to your opinion. However you should not keep stating it as a fact. It is not. It an opinion and only an opinion. You are not entitled to force your opinion on me though you can and are trying to use force to do so.

I believe that it is morally wrong to give one's word, such as accepting a unconditional surrender, and then go back on ones word. You, from your posts, feel it is quite morally correct to do so. I disagree with you and feel that one’s word is the only thing of value one can really have in this universe. However unlike you I am not trying to claim my version of morality is absolute or to force my version of morality on you.

In the end Planet Bob will decide for it's self what is moral and what is not moral at this time.

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='13 May 2010 - 08:53 PM' timestamp='1273776779' post='2297091']I do believe that IRON/DAWN are using strategy and tactics, something i would have thought that SF/their allies members would know a thing or two about but it seems that some of their members schooling was found lacking.[/quote]

Yeah, that's why we win our wars and you lose yours.

Isn't it funny how often all those uses of "strategy" that revolves around "keeping my arse safe in Peace Mode" tend to end, unsurprisingly, in crushing defeat?

Edited May 13, 2010 by Krashnaia

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='13 May 2010 - 04:56 PM' timestamp='1273784172' post='2297183']
Yeah, that's why we win our wars and you lose yours.

Isn't it funny how often all those uses of "strategy" that revolves around "keeping my arse safe in Peace Mode" tend to end, unsurprisingly, in crushing defeat?
[/quote]

Would that be more or less crushing than taking their nations out of peace mode?

Gre has proven its quite capable of losing 100k+ a day of its NS without any real risk to IRON. Why come out and trade nukes with a nation that has good odds of deleting if you leave it alone?

[mike717]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='13 May 2010 - 03:56 PM' timestamp='1273784172' post='2297183']
Yeah, that's why we win our wars and you lose yours.

Isn't it funny how often all those uses of "strategy" that revolves around "keeping my arse safe in Peace Mode" tend to end, unsurprisingly, in crushing defeat?
[/quote]


Seriously? I think everyone can see that IRON throwing their top tier at gramlins just to end the war would end poorly for IRON. The entire top tier would be decimated in what would certainly be a pyrrhic victory at best. The same nations that are in peace mode house around one third of IRON's tech, and at this point almost all of its money. That cash and tech will be required to repay reps. This has very little to do with "keeping their arses safe".

Edited May 13, 2010 by mike717

[Felix von Agnu]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 May 2010 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1273767318' post='2296996']
IRON is clearly culpable for their attacks on MK with no valid reason.
Gremlins are not the sole arbiters of justice; I've said as nauseum that [b]we are all[/b] obligated to uphold justice.
It is my belief that IRON recognizes their moral failing but thinks they can "slip by" with not admitting it because they are stronger.
I believe that because the alternative is that they don't actually see any moral failing in their actions (which would make them pathetic if true)
[/quote]
So what about the moral failings of TOP, DAWN, and friends? Aren't you obligated to attack them by your logic?

[Kim Jaym Il]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='13 May 2010 - 06:06 PM' timestamp='1273782948' post='2297172']
Neither are cowardice and prudence. But the feeble-minded get confused by that mask pretty easily.
[/quote]

IRON's nations, ranked 1 through 17 are all in peace mode. All of which happen to be in the range where Gre has the numerical advantage. Now, surely there's no way that they've been strategically ordered to do so by their government, no, they must all be cowards hiding in peace mode...

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='13 May 2010 - 04:56 PM' timestamp='1273784172' post='2297183']
Yeah, that's why we win our wars and you lose yours.

Isn't it funny how often all those uses of "strategy" that revolves around "keeping my arse safe in Peace Mode" tend to end, unsurprisingly, in crushing defeat?
[/quote]
When you fight a war where you are vastly outnumbered, get back to us about the strategy of peace mode.

[quote name='Felix von Agnu' date='13 May 2010 - 05:25 PM' timestamp='1273785912' post='2297209']
So what about the moral failings of TOP, DAWN, and friends? Aren't you obligated to attack them by your logic?
[/quote]
Yes, he is. Which is why his 'logic' and 'morals' are merely a front for Ram's ego.

Strange enough, Ram still hasn't posted here. Maybe he's afraid to actually admit the reason we are still at war?

[SynthFG]

[quote name='Jaymjaym' date='13 May 2010 - 10:37 PM' timestamp='1273786625' post='2297221']
IRON's nations, ranked 1 through 17 are all in peace mode. All of which happen to be in the range where Gre has the numerical advantage. Now, surely there's no way that they've been strategically ordered to do so by their government, no, they must all be cowards hiding in peace mode...
[/quote]

Had they been out of peace mode at any point since the end of Jan and actually tried to fight a round or two since the last war started I#d agree that it was strategy

But the fact that nearly all of them have not taken so much as a cruise missile in the defence of their alliance in the recent war suggests that these are the guys who either can't or won't fight

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' date='13 May 2010 - 01:56 PM' timestamp='1273773374' post='2297063']
It is sort of confusing to me to see folks say that the Grämlins are holding IRON and DAWN in neverending war or are drawing out the conflict. Fact of the matter is, IRON could blitz them today and bring this to an end much faster than what time it would take for it to end by way of Grämlins recanting and saying "no mas".

IRON you certainly have more than enough friends to ensure that the rebuild from the blitz and subsequent curbstomp wont be too long drawn. There is also the famed billion dollar club. End it now. It would also be somewhat satisfying to you, to kick them to the roadside after they held you at war for so long.

What do you guys want here? An end to the war? Satisfaction? It is within reach, right? They are eroded, middle order smashed, fillipino heroes all but dead and the PR campaign is done and all credibility they had, shot. What??!! What are you doing here?
[/quote]
I don't blame them for wanting to see Gre squirm and then showing them that they give as good as they get.

[shilo]

[quote name='shahenshah' date='13 May 2010 - 10:08 PM' timestamp='1273781289' post='2297155']
TypoNinja, an apology was offered in one of the meetings, it was not deemed necessary nor Gramlins objected to that nor requested it from us at the time, so I do not think they're looking for an apology.

*ninja edit: Nobody requested the apology from us if my memory serves me right, it was offered on our own initiative.
[/quote]
Yes, we offered that on our own, it wasn't considered necessary, and the illegal and not official gRAMlin representative never made an illegal and unofficial statement saying otherwise.

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='13 May 2010 - 10:09 PM' timestamp='1273781372' post='2297157']
A simply dumb attemp to deny an objective reality.

I don't need to paint them. They have painted themselves already.
[/quote]
[quote name='Jaymjaym' date='13 May 2010 - 11:37 PM' timestamp='1273786625' post='2297221']
IRON's nations, ranked 1 through 17 are all in peace mode. All of which happen to be in the range where Gre has the numerical advantage. Now, surely there's no way that they've been strategically ordered to do so by their government, no, they must all be cowards hiding in peace mode...
[/quote]
Don't argue with the great field marshal, destroyer of worlds, victor of great wars...

[quote name='Felix von Agnu' date='13 May 2010 - 11:25 PM' timestamp='1273785912' post='2297209']
So what about the moral failings of TOP, DAWN, and friends? Aren't you obligated to attack them by your logic?
[/quote]
I know we are small, but we actually are at war with the gRAMlins, infact we are defending IRON against them since they attacked them during the last war.

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='14 May 2010 - 12:10 AM' timestamp='1273788629' post='2297249']
When you fight a war where you are vastly outnumbered, get back to us about the strategy of peace mode.[/quote]

Yes, of course. You are a genius.

Don't let the fact that your alliance in the last year has gone from crushing defeat through crushing defeat, and that the Grämlins can do what they are doing with no one really lifting a finger*, as an indicator that you are doing something wrong.




*Writing at the forums is free. Doing something about it in the field is another thing.

[quote name='shilo' date='14 May 2010 - 12:15 AM' timestamp='1273788932' post='2297254']Don't argue with the great field marshal, destroyer of worlds, victor of great wars... [/quote]

Attemping to humiliate others will not prove your points. It will only once again show why your bloc has become more and more diplomatically isolated and thus turned into a Butt Monkey.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Krashnaia