The New Grämlins

[Grimm Reaper]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='27 May 2010 - 03:24 PM' timestamp='1274988275' post='2313748']No; mostly because we haven't offered you any peace terms.
[/quote]

Is it time for the 'either-or' fallacy now? Why, it looks like it is.

You haven't offered peace terms. This is true. However, in most diplomatic relationships, the dying alliance doesn't get to dictate terms.

Unless you are under the impression that you are winning this fight.

Edited May 28, 2010 by Grimm Reaper

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Charles the Great' date='28 May 2010 - 12:47 PM' timestamp='1275076057' post='2314845']
Matthew we all get what Gre is doing ........ they are trying to humiliate IRON/DAWN "PERIOD".

This is unacceptable on so many levels. I will not even try to state the reasons again as so many others have and you are being purposefully obtuse.

Gremlins reasoning is flawed, IMHO, as they are the ones who have consistently declared war on IRON. What makes you guys think you can or should punish them. As far as I can see no one asked or wants you to take up the cross for them.

Have a nice day,
CtG
[/quote]


What world do you live in where wanting somebody to acknowledge their wrongdoings is "trying to humiliate" them?


[quote name='Grimm Reaper' date='28 May 2010 - 12:50 PM' timestamp='1275076228' post='2314847']
Is it time for the 'either-or' fallacy now? Why, it looks like it is.

You haven't offered peace terms. This is true. However, in most diplomatic relationships, the dying alliance doesn't get to dictate terms.

Unless you are under the impression that you are winning this fight.
[/quote]

Irrelevant to my post.
Whether you think we're winning or not does not change the fact that we haven't offered peace terms.

Edited May 28, 2010 by Matthew PK

[bigwoody]

[center][img]http://imgur.com/BQoZa.png[/img]
From the desk of the Ramlins Ministry of Information (a highlight for posterity):[/center]


[19:41] <VonDroz|Gre> i just went over stats and historical records
[19:41] <DVDCCHN[IRON|SoS]> sounds like a fun time
[19:41] <VonDroz|Gre> i estimate we can fight for a couple years at this pace, a little longer bc i estimate a few applicants will join as well

"To those of you criticizing "terms": No terms have been offered. It it IRON's decision whether or not to demonstrate their defeat. A complete and unconditional surrender is the only rational avenue to pursue given the nations IRON has in peace mode."

"My high horse?
This negotiating is between a victor and a defeated party. Surrender if the first step in recognizing that fact."

"I want you to voluntarily weaken your position so that you may be allowed a seat at the table."

"I'm not afraid of sunk costs, I just haven't folded after the turn. Seems to me like IRON/DAWN is on the draw for the river.
Naturally, they will think otherwise."

"Because it is an unacceptable moral tragedy to make a defeated enemy disarm before discussing terms."

"I never said Gremlins could make them do anything; in fact I have asserted the opposite.
They should turn themselves in."

"Their submission given the circumstances in which The Gremlins cannot "stomp them under boot" to extract an allocution is granted as much sincerity as possible in the cyberverse."

"The entire cyberverse is victimized if IRON is permitted peace without an allocution."

"Dwindling numbers don't diminish the validity of our goal."

"Even if GRE shrinks to 1 nation, it will not change the fact that GRE is not making any tyrannical demands."



From IRON having to "admit defeat", to "turning themselves in even when they don't have to", watching the Ramlins implode from the inside has been one of the most entertaining things I have ever seen in my time here. Thank you everyone involved, and to the Ramlins Ministry of Information for the endless amusement!

[Gizmo]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='27 May 2010 - 09:42 PM' timestamp='1275021749' post='2314281']
I recall something like that being said, but not by me (in fact I think it was from one of our 'resigned' members)
[/quote]

You seem to have a lot of 'resigned' members.
Sigh.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 May 2010 - 03:32 PM' timestamp='1275075132' post='2314815']
So you're arguing about the definition of a word rather than what GRE is actually doing.
Gotcha.
[/quote]

Resorting to putting words in my mouth? Ahh have we fallen so far?

What Gre is actually doing, by the way, is asking for unconditional surrender. and when the community object to such a term and details why, Gre tells us that that inst what unconditional surrender means, but won't actually detail what it does want. That's the inconsistency.

Now despite your ignorance on basic comprehension of the English language, and your pretty wishes for fairies and unicorns aside, there is no argument about what unconditional surrender means. Everybody else knows what the term means, its Gre's delusions alone at this point that it might mean something else (something that you won't tell us)

[quote]
What inconsistency is that?
[/quote]

Well there are a few to choose from, we have the initial one where first there we're tech terms that would be part of the ESA, then there were not, then there were again, and then there were not and the unconditional surrender demand appeared.

Then there's your inability to use the English language in the same way as the rest of us, and you don't even have the excuse of being an international community like FOK.

And more recently there's the one war you think its your place to offer terms in a conflict you are losing. You are down how many members and something like half your NS since you embarked upon this farce? More painfully, haven't you dropped something like 400 wonders?

And lets not forget the nebulous nature of terms, the sort of here sort of not, ill defined crap you've fed us that really says nothing.

I think that's a sufficient sample size of inconsistency.

[quote]
And GRE has been explicit about what it wants, how IRON should proceed, and the fact that we will divulge terms following a surrender.
[/quote]

No you haven't, you use a phrase like un conditional surrender, then detail a procedure that has little relation to it, or more hilariously assert that IRON could just go back to fighting after surrendering if they don't like your offered terms.

[quote]
It's your own fault that you can't separate the idea of "Surrender and quarter" from "Agree to terms for restitution"
[/quote]

I'm not sure where to even begin here.

Lets start with the fact that its only you who have issues understanding proper military and political parlance, not the rest of us. At some point I hope you'll realize that when the entirety of a community is telling you something and you are the only one contradicting it, it is you who has the problem not the community.

Then lets move on to fact that the idea of quarter in this context is ridiculous, you aren't taking prisoners. Its also flat out wrong, since you are explicitly refusing to offer guarantees of your behavior towards a surrendered opponent, which is exactly what Quarter is.

Agree to terms for restitution? Let me clue you in, the rest of us not trying to pull a fast one call those "Surrender terms" the things you explicitly refused to tell anyone. Instead you've set up a mystery door travesty of a diplomatic process. Oh and lets not forget that after all your shenanigans Gre is about the only people left who think you are entitled to restitution any longer.

[RePePe]

Update:

The Grämlins are down to 30 members. In addition, there is a nation of yours named MacLand who will be gone by tomorrow. Half of your members are in anarchy.

This is quite the amusement. In the hopes of "wanting [IRON] to acknowledge their wrongdoings," you continue a humiliating conflict which thrashes away daily at your alliance as a whole.

If I may ask, what have you to gain, [i]realistically[/i]?

[Baldr]

[quote name='RePePe' date='28 May 2010 - 04:06 PM' timestamp='1275080764' post='2314912']
The Grämlins are down to 30 members. In addition, there is a nation of yours named MacLand who will be gone by tomorrow. [/quote]

Macland is gone, so they are down to 29.

[quote]If I may ask, what have you to gain, realistically?[/quote]

I don't think they are paying attention to reality.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='RePePe' date='29 May 2010 - 07:06 AM' timestamp='1275080764' post='2314912']
If I may ask, what have you to gain, [i]realistically[/i]?
[/quote]

Is it really so difficult for you to understand that some people are capable of doing things because they are right rather than in hopes of gain?

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='28 May 2010 - 06:04 PM' timestamp='1275084223' post='2314974']
Is it really so difficult for you to understand that some people are capable of doing things because they have a screw loose rather than in hopes of gain?
[/quote]

Fixed that for you.

[RePePe]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='28 May 2010 - 05:04 PM' timestamp='1275084223' post='2314974']
Is it really so difficult for you to understand that some people are capable of doing things because they are right rather than in hopes of gain?
[/quote]

Oh silly me! I forgot the notoriety surrounding the willingness of Gramlins to take the moral high ground and do what is right for no other purpose than doing the right thing.

[Lord Levistus]

What purpose does this thread serve? Why not start a new thread and talk about GOLD, or Ordo Verde? Just as relevant as Gremlins.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 May 2010 - 02:45 PM' timestamp='1275075890' post='2314841']
That is the silliest argument in this entire thread and you should re-read what you wrote.


You actually think that the problem here is that people think GRE is "lying" about how we want IRON to surrender?
Good Admin, you are actually worried that if IRON surrenders we will say "psyche!" and attack them?
Come on, Doch, you are much smarter than that.

Every alliance on Bob would swarm GRE, and they'd be right to do so.

In fact, it would seem like if you [b]actually believe that we'd do that[/b] that you'd [b]want[/b] IRON to comply so that GRE would get steamrolled by everyone and we'd be done with this.[/quote]

you seriously think every alliance on Bob would swarm Gre? now that is the silliest argument i have heard. not trusting Gremlins is smart at this point. ya'll have shown yourselves to be delusional and allowed yourself to be lead to this point by an egotistical madman.

also, who said anything about ya'll attacking IRON/DAWN after they surrendered? i never did. i just said that ya'lls word cannot be trusted.


[quote]Furthermore, the basis for people calling us "untrustworthy" is strictly because we have demanded something of which they don't approve.
So the consequently say "You don't actually want what you're saying you want, because the fact that you say you want it is evidence that you're a liar!" is circular and asinine.
[/quote]

untrustworthy=/=liar. it means that your word cannot be trusted. you have such a twisted view of reality at this point that it would be stupid to think that your view would not be altered for whatever reason. You started off with an argument based on IRON having been on the opposite side of Gremlins (despite one of those being Gremlins actively trying to oppose IRON and not the other way around). then it switched to just this one time being the cause. then it switched to some sort of moral crusade despite only IRON/DAWN being targeted and none of the other culprits.

so yeah, you change whatever is needed to be changed in order to fit whatever you need it to fit. you are attempting to do so with the term unconditional surrender as well.

so if you do not understand why your word has little to no value and should not be trusted, then oh well.

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='28 May 2010 - 05:04 PM' timestamp='1275084223' post='2314974']
Is it really so difficult for you to understand that some people are capable of doing things because they are right rather than in hopes of gain?
[/quote]

the fact is is that what Gremlins are doing is not right. There is nothing about it that can even be argued as remotely close to right. Gremlins are doing what Polaris did to start this whole mess and that is act like the moral police. yet those who cried out against Polaris doing such are now doing little to nothing about Gremlins.

Gremlins are also attempting to set a very dangerous precedent that should not be allowed to be set in CN and that is unconditional surrender. Despite Matthew's argument about how unconditional should be used and even what the definition is, the precedent of unconditional surrender will be set and it will almost assuredly be abused massively.

so, the only people actually attempting to do what is right is IRON/DAWN and those who join either alliance to fight the good fight. other than that, most are talking about how wrong it is or doing nothing at all or on the occasion defending Gremlins such as you.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='28 May 2010 - 05:04 PM' timestamp='1275084223' post='2314974']
Is it really so difficult for you to understand that some people are capable of doing things because they are right rather than in hopes of gain?
[/quote]

In this case, I don't see what they are doing as right.

However, for the sake of argument, lets say they are "right", and that IRON needs to be humiliated, forced to surrender, forced to decom military, and forced to give in to whatever Gramlins comes up with next (at the threat of returning to war.)

Is Gramlins accomplishing those goals? Are they getting close to accomplishing those? Are Gramlins convincing other alliances that IRON needs to be dealt with harshly?

I believe tech raiding is wrong, therefore I don't do it. However, you don't see me declaring a personal jihad on every alliance that tech raids, either. It wouldn't help at all.

Similarly, whatever Gramlins is trying to accomplish here, it doesn't seem to be working.

[Broncos98]

[quote name='Baldr' date='28 May 2010 - 07:06 PM' timestamp='1275091543' post='2315073']
Similarly, whatever Gramlins is trying to accomplish here, it doesn't seem to be working.
[/quote]

Understatement of the week

I think it's time that the truth finally comes out, so that the nations, alliances, mods and admins of CN can learn the true nature of this conflict.

Grem secretly loves IRON and simply wishes to help us rebuild prior to us paying reps. In a sign of true friendship and selflessness, and with the realization that there is only way to accomplish this goal without people seeing through their intentions, they have decided to destroy themselves in the process.

IRON simply cannot thank you enough, dear friends in Gramlins. We IRON'ers can only hope that our other friends would be so kind and loyal.

[RePePe]

This thread now serves the importance of being entertainment only.

GRE is no longer relevant in the world of Planet Bob. It is now an ineffective and tiny alliance that enjoys long walks down the plank and participates in circuses as the ones shooting themselves out of cannons.

I enjoy watching them humiliate themselves, though. It's just like the cute drama of other micro-alliances.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='28 May 2010 - 01:32 PM' timestamp='1275078761' post='2314879']
Resorting to putting words in my mouth? Ahh have we fallen so far?

What Gre is actually doing, by the way, is asking for unconditional surrender. and when the community object to such a term and details why, Gre tells us that that inst what unconditional surrender means, but won't actually detail what it does want. That's the inconsistency. [/quote]

I contend that The Gremlins have been clear about the process of what we want.
Would you like me to explain it again so you don't have to go back over a hundred pages to find it?


[quote[]Now despite your ignorance on basic comprehension of the English language, and your pretty wishes for fairies and unicorns aside, there is no argument about what unconditional surrender means. Everybody else knows what the term means, its Gre's delusions alone at this point that it might mean something else (something that you won't tell us)[/quote]

Please see above.
I don't care to argue with you about the meaning of a word.
I have even gone so far as to explain why "Unconditional Surrender" cannot mean what you contend it means.



[quote]Well there are a few to choose from, we have the initial one where first there we're tech terms that would be part of the ESA, then there were not, then there were again, and then there were not and the unconditional surrender demand appeared.[/quote]

You have your facts wrong, and this has been discussed with VE before.
In fact, I think that you and I discussed this personally (but needless to say you were more receptive when there wasn't an audience!)


[quote]And more recently there's the one war you think its your place to offer terms in a conflict you are losing. You are down how many members and something like half your NS since you embarked upon this farce? More painfully, haven't you dropped something like 400 wonders?[/quote]

Are you contending that only one side may offer a path to peace?
GRE has offered a path to peace, as has IRON.
That is the situation, the only reasons for a thread about it are that people don't understand the process or rationale, or that people want to take jabs at either of the connected parties.

I think you've made it clear that you're not interested in furthering your understanding so why are you here?

[quote]And lets not forget the nebulous nature of terms, the sort of here sort of not, ill defined crap you've fed us that really says nothing.[/quote]

Nebulous nature of terms?
Our terms are absolute, black and white. You just don't know what they are... shall we have a debate about the definition of "nebulous?"
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v482/mkaram/magnets.jpg[/IMG]



[quote]No you haven't, you use a phrase like un conditional surrender, then detail a procedure that has little relation to it, or more hilariously assert that IRON could just go back to fighting after surrendering if they don't like your offered terms.[/quote]

What's more hilarious is that you actually seem to believe that IRON [b]cannot[/b] go back to fighting if they refuse our terms.
What other possible course of action could there be?



[quote]Lets start with the fact that its only you who have issues understanding proper military and political parlance, not the rest of us. At some point I hope you'll realize that when the entirety of a community is telling you something and you are the only one contradicting it, it is you who has the problem not the community.

Then lets move on to fact that the idea of quarter in this context is ridiculous, you aren't taking prisoners. Its also flat out wrong, since you are explicitly refusing to offer guarantees of your behavior towards a surrendered opponent, which is exactly what Quarter is.[/quote]

Except GRE has made it clear that a surrendered opponent is quartered. That is, they are not attacked.
They are granted quarter immediately following a surrender; this has been stated many times.
Quarter doesn't mean that later IRON can't say "I don't like this, we're going back to war"
Any assertion to the contrary is fantasy. It's not as if GRE officials enter the offices of IRON officials and disable their "Declare War" buttons.

[quote]Agree to terms for restitution? Let me clue you in, the rest of us not trying to pull a fast one call those "Surrender terms" the things you explicitly refused to tell anyone. Instead you've set up a mystery door travesty of a diplomatic process. Oh and lets not forget that after all your shenanigans Gre is about the only people left who think you are entitled to restitution any longer.
[/quote]


Again, it's not my problem that you are incapable of separating "Surrender then Quarter" from "Restitution then Peace"

[Fernando12]

hmmm...maybe these Gramlins are just playing the definition game with IRON

Technically, all IRON has to do is surrender without asking for any conditions... that is IRON's unconditional surrender.

No terms could actually be set by Gramlins afterwards as they would have already received what they wanted from IRON surrendering and from IRON doing so without asking for conditions.

So, MattPK is that right? Does IRON just have to surrender and not ask you guys for anything to end this war?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Fernando12' date='28 May 2010 - 06:56 PM' timestamp='1275098185' post='2315163']
hmmm...maybe these Gramlins are just playing the definition game with IRON

Technically, all IRON has to do is surrender without asking for any conditions... that is IRON's unconditional surrender.

No terms could actually be set by Gramlins afterwards as they would have already received what they wanted from IRON surrendering and from IRON doing so without asking for conditions.

So, MattPK is that right? Does IRON just have to surrender and not ask you guys for anything to end this war?
[/quote]


1) IRON has to surrender without conditions. This does not at all mean they have agreed to comply with any subsequent terms (see step 2)
2) Then we will give them quarter and delineate our sets of terms in specific order. (Perhaps the terms are "Pay one tech!" akin to their last surrender...but I wouldn't bet on that)
3) If IRON chooses to comply, they will have peace and be absolved from any further response to this conflict.

At any time during the process: 1, 2 or 3, IRON can, of course, say "This is unacceptable, we prefer to return to war."

At no point preceding their surrender does IRON get to stipulate any conditions such as "Gremlins must agree to do X"; hence the phrase "[b]Unconditional[/b] Surrender"

Edited May 29, 2010 by Matthew PK

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 May 2010 - 10:08 PM' timestamp='1275098919' post='2315176']

At no point preceding their surrender does IRON get to stipulate any conditions such as "Gremlins must agree to do X"; hence the phrase "[b]Unconditional[/b] Surrender"
[/quote]

*facepalm*

For the millionth time conditions in a surrender refer to guarantees from the victor as to treatment of the surrendered party. Unconditional surrender means you are explicitly refusing to give them any assurances of what standard of behavior they can expect from you.

Now kindly stop butchering my language in an attempt to score PR gains. You are just trading an appearance of stupidity for an appearance of foolishness.

[Aurion]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 May 2010 - 10:08 PM' timestamp='1275098919' post='2315176']
1) IRON has to surrender without conditions. This does not at all mean they have agreed to comply with any subsequent terms (see step 2)
2) Then we will give them quarter and delineate our sets of terms in specific order. (Perhaps the terms are "Pay one tech!" akin to their last surrender...but I wouldn't bet on that)
3) If IRON chooses to comply, they will have peace and be absolved from any further response to this conflict.

At any time during the process: 1, 2 or 3, IRON can, of course, say "This is unacceptable, we prefer to return to war."

At no point preceding their surrender does IRON get to stipulate any conditions such as "Gremlins must agree to do X"; hence the phrase "[b]Unconditional[/b] Surrender"
[/quote]

Dear god, you're making me feel bad for IRON and DAWN and whoever else is in this mess.

Stop, please. >_>

[Fernando12]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 May 2010 - 09:08 PM' timestamp='1275098919' post='2315176']
1) IRON has to surrender without conditions. This does not at all mean they have agreed to comply with any subsequent terms (see step 2)
2) Then we will give them quarter and delineate our sets of terms in specific order. (Perhaps the terms are "Pay one tech!" akin to their last surrender...but I wouldn't bet on that)
3) If IRON chooses to comply, they will have peace and be absolved from any further response to this conflict.

At any time during the process: 1, 2 or 3, IRON can, of course, say "This is unacceptable, we prefer to return to war."

At no point preceding their surrender does IRON get to stipulate any conditions such as "Gremlins must agree to do X"; hence the phrase "[b]Unconditional[/b] Surrender"
[/quote]

Then all of this drama from both sides is silly and pointless. Your steps to peace are pretty much what happens anyway.

1. FARK and NSO talk peace.
2. FARK sets the terms.
3. NSO rejects beer review. War continues.

1. FARK and NSO talk peace.
2. FARK sets the terms.
3. NSO does milk review. Peace process is officially complete.

Both peace processes I gave are the same thing that Gramlins is asking for, just different language but the same process.

Drama over nothing really. IRON wants peace then they can take a few steps and see if what's there and if Gramlins wants to set rediculous terms then its back to war.

Edit: not saying IRON needs peace from Gramlins but if they want to end this so they can pay their reps to the other alliances maybe its something to consider. At this point no one will consider this a Gramlin victory anyways for what has happened to the Gramlins membership. IRON will still be the winner even if they technically surrender to Gramlins.

Edited May 29, 2010 by Fernando12

[RePePe]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 May 2010 - 09:08 PM' timestamp='1275098919' post='2315176']
1) IRON has to surrender without conditions. This does not at all mean they have agreed to comply with any subsequent terms (see step 2)
2) Then we will give them quarter and delineate our sets of terms in specific order. (Perhaps the terms are "Pay one tech!" akin to their last surrender...but I wouldn't bet on that)
3) If IRON chooses to comply, they will have peace and be absolved from any further response to this conflict.

At any time during the process: 1, 2 or 3, IRON can, of course, say "This is unacceptable, we prefer to return to war."

At no point preceding their surrender does IRON get to stipulate any conditions such as "Gremlins must agree to do X"; hence the phrase "[b]Unconditional[/b] Surrender"
[/quote]

I thought that only the victor got to stipulate terms?

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 May 2010 - 09:48 PM' timestamp='1275097663' post='2315156']
What's more hilarious is that you actually seem to believe that IRON [b]cannot[/b] go back to fighting if they refuse our terms.
What other possible course of action could there be?
[/quote]
You missed the other party. Those who believe that IRON has honor and will do what it says we will do. If we surrender, we surrender.

Just because we [b]can[/b] break surrender terms does not mean we [b]should[/b].

[Grimm Reaper]

[quote name='Fernando12' date='28 May 2010 - 10:33 PM' timestamp='1275100393' post='2315196']
Then all of this drama from both sides is silly and pointless. Your steps to peace are pretty much what happens anyway.

1. FARK and NSO talk peace.
2. FARK sets the terms.
3. NSO rejects beer review. War continues.

1. FARK and NSO talk peace.
2. FARK sets the terms.
3. NSO does milk review. Peace process is officially complete.

Both peace processes I gave are the same thing that Gramlins is asking for, just different language but the same process.

Drama over nothing really. IRON wants peace then they can take a few steps and see if what's there and if Gramlins wants to set rediculous terms then its back to war.

Edit: not saying IRON needs peace from Gramlins but if they want to end this so they can pay their reps to the other alliances maybe its something to consider. At this point no one will consider this a Gramlin victory anyways for what has happened to the Gramlins membership. IRON will still be the winner even if they technically surrender to Gramlins.
[/quote]

Not *quite* the same, as disarming would be necessary before negotiating per Ramirus:

[quote][17:38] <RamirusMaximus|GRE> I have nothing to say to IRON until you surrender and lay down your arms.[/quote]

Unless PK outranks Ramirus and disagrees with the above, disarmament appears to be the prerequisite to any 'negotiations.'

Now, let's assume that what PK says is true about GRE's plan:

1) We disarm, they don't attack unless we reject terms
2) They reveal a preset group of terms which they'd kept secret up until now
3a) We accept their terms with no negotiation and end the war
3b) We reject their terms and are placed at a huge military disadvantage by the aforementioned disarmament

3a is completely untenable. Not only are IRON and DAWN the inevitably victorious alliances, GRE's inflated and misplaced sense of moral superiority would allow them to justify even the harshest terms. So, with that in mind, taking 3a would lead to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

3b just puts us in a prone position. The advantages we currently have? Gone. There is infinite reason why GRE would want us to do this. For us? None.

Moreover, for it cannot be emphasized enough, the losers of a war do not dictate the terms. GRE is most certainly the loser. From this conclusion, there are two options: you can accept this with no further losses to your alliance's strength, or you can sign the death warrant of Gramlins, an alliance that despite your government's idiocy is still considered a brother by some on Bob.

I would prefer the former. I have no desire to witness a suicide.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Grimm Reaper' date='29 May 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1275105954' post='2315261']
I have no desire to witness a suicide.
[/quote]

You are witnessing just that--suicide by war. Your guilt in this "enterprise" is exactly zero. Don't fret over it, not even for 5 minutes.