The New Grämlins

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 11:47 PM' timestamp='1273463204' post='2293171']
If IRON is permitted to escape their clear wrongdoing with nothing but token reps then the entire cyberverse is wronged.
That is the entire basis of moral absolutes.

It's a shame that Gremlins are the only ones willing to put themselves are risk for this important endeavor. I with everybody would fulfill their moral obligation to stand against IRON's clear aggression.
[/quote]
You are a couple months late. Preemptive strikes were shown to be a bad idea. Now it's time to make sure unconditional surrender is shown to be a bad idea. This is because no one wants to have to deal with a political world in which unconditional surrender becomes any kind of standard anymore than we want to see preemptive strikes become the standard for military conflicts. Actually, I can reasonably say I like the idea of unconditional surrender even less.

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 11:49 PM' timestamp='1273463343' post='2293176']
Every single person in the cyberverse has an inalienable right to oppose injustice like that perpetrated by IRON.
What more, they have an obligation to do so.
[/quote]
It was a pre-emptive attack. Give me a break. You want to persecute every alliance that pre-emptively attacked an uninvolved party? Because we can pull up quite a few more examples if you feel like going on a moral crusade against them as well.

[Shodemofi-NPO]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 10:49 PM' timestamp='1273463343' post='2293176']
Every single person in the cyberverse has an inalienable right to oppose injustice like that perpetrated by IRON.
What more, they have an obligation to do so.
[/quote]
Said injustice was opposed. The opposition was successful, and as a result the ESA were born.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='09 May 2010 - 08:50 PM' timestamp='1273463396' post='2293180']
You are a couple months late. Preemptive strikes were shown to be a bad idea. Now it's time to make sure unconditional surrender is shown to be a bad idea. This is because no one wants to have to deal with a political world in which unconditional surrender becomes any kind of standard anymore than we want to see preemptive strikes become the standard for military conflicts. Actually, I can reasonably say I like the idea of unconditional surrender even less.
[/quote]


Admitting the strategic failings of your actions is not the same as admitting the moral failings of your actions.
Righteous parties lose wars all the time.

Also, you have not outlined why unconditional surrender is unacceptable.
What you [b]have[/b] done is claimed your incorrect definition of unconditional surrender is unacceptable.

I have clearly outlined what Gremlins means by unconditional surrender.
And the response has been "No, that's not what you mean. You must only mean what I think you mean!"

Instead of pointing out any moral failings of our actions or our intentions, people have proposed their own ideas about what we will do and have claimed [b]that such actions adherent to their own definition[/b] would be unacceptable.

Do you see what I'm saying?

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 11:56 PM' timestamp='1273463792' post='2293191']
Admitting the strategic failings of your actions is not the same as admitting the moral failings of your actions.
Righteous parties lose wars all the time.

Also, you have not outlined why unconditional surrender is unacceptable.
What you [b]have[/b] done is claimed your incorrect definition of unconditional surrender is unacceptable.

I have clearly outlined what Gremlins means by unconditional surrender.
And the response has been "No, that's not what you mean. You must only mean what I think you mean!"

Instead of pointing out any moral failings of our actions or our intentions, people have proposed their own ideas about what we will do and have claimed [b]that such actions adherent to their own definition[/b] would be unacceptable.

Do you see what I'm saying?
[/quote]
Forcing your opponent to decom military before they are presented with terms is unacceptable. There.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='09 May 2010 - 08:51 PM' timestamp='1273463448' post='2293181']
It was a pre-emptive attack. Give me a break. You want to persecute every alliance that pre-emptively attacked an uninvolved party? Because we can pull up quite a few more examples if you feel like going on a moral crusade against them as well.
[/quote]
If you want to clutter up the thread (or make a new one) I'd be happy to look at other supposedly unacceptable pre-emptive attacks on uninvolved parties and try to formulate a judgement.... but for right now I'm a little busy dealing with [b]your[/b] unacceptable pre-emptive attack on uninvolved parties.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='09 May 2010 - 08:58 PM' timestamp='1273463883' post='2293194']
Forcing your opponent to decom military before they are presented with terms is unacceptable. There.
[/quote]


Yet you have no understanding of what our decom orders are. For all you know they are "destroy your cruise missles"
Regardless, it's not as if we're giving them no quarter.
We are not a massive force like NPO. Even a temporarily demilitarized IRON is a formidable force to GRE. I have statistically proven that even if they destroyed all their nuclear missles that their rebuild rate is sufficient to almost guarantee a nuclear attack on [b]every Gremlin every day[/b]
If you want to refute my math, do that.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Baldr]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='09 May 2010 - 09:28 PM' timestamp='1273458480' post='2293068']
You are right. You are cowardly and evil. But we are going to burn it out of you, even if it is the last thing we attempt.
[/quote]

I'm amused at how people who are demanding unconditional surrender are painting the other buys as evil. You give them the choice between eternal war or slavery, yet they are the bad guys.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1273460252' post='2293107']
And, again, their unconditional surrender [b]does not[/b] necessitate or obligate them to accept the terms we offer.
So, even in the ridiculous event a term like "decom wonders" was offered; they would simply return to war.[/quote]

If all it will lead to is a return to war, then I see no reason for them to surrender to you in the first place.

The choices you've given them are
1: Eternal war.
2: Unconditional surrender, do whatever we say, or go back to war.

I don't blame them for choosing not to become your slaves.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 10:17 PM' timestamp='1273461446' post='2293128']
If you will not surrender because "GRE can't make you" (which has been repeated by the chest-thumping IRON/DAWN members) then you must acknowledge that you are making the "might makes right" argument.[/quote]

Might doesn't make right. On the other hand, Might doesn't inherently imply you are wrong, either.

Might and Right are not directly related.

In this case, Gramlins is demanding that IRON become their slaves. I consider that wrong, no matter who has the power. And in this case, you don't have the power to enforce it. So you just look like fools.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 10:20 PM' timestamp='1273461631' post='2293133']
Unconditional surrender does not at all imply that you accept the subsequent terms.
It means that your choice is between our orders or returning to war. You do not get to place conditions.[/quote]

I agree. Their choice is slavery, or eternal war.

I know which one I'd choose.

I'm sure Gramlins wouldn't give up their sovereignty either. So far, you seem to think you are winning this war. You've claimed that the NS charts don't matter, for instance. If, a few months down the road, you continue to lose members, and perhaps you yourself have been attacked and beaten down - *if* that happens and IRON had changed from their current "We'll give you white peace" to "You must unconditionally surrender", would you do it? I don't think so.

And I wouldn't blame you for it. I'm not sure I'd blame IRON for giving you the same choice you gave them, despite the fact I think it's wrong. You've pretty much set yourself in that situation, saying "This is the only way the war will end", and I wouldn't blame them from turning it around on you.

However, it doesn't look to me like they would do that. They have a lot more honor than you do, and I think they would recognize that it's wrong and give you terms up front, for you to accept or refuse.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 12:01 AM' timestamp='1273464086' post='2293197']
Yet you have no understanding of what our decom orders are. For all you know they are "destroy your cruise missles"
Regardless, it's not as if we're giving them no quarter.
We are not a massive force like NPO. I have statistically proven that even if they destroyed all their nuclear missles that their rebuild rate is sufficient to almost guarantee a nuclear attack on [b]every Gremlins every day[/b]
If you want to refute my math, do that.
[/quote]
I don't need to. The precedent is horrible and cannot be allowed to be set under any circumstances.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='09 May 2010 - 09:02 PM' timestamp='1273464139' post='2293200']
I don't need to. The precedent is horrible and cannot be allowed to be set under any circumstances.
[/quote]


As far as I can tell, you are opposing a precedent that we are not even trying to set.

No mater how often Baldr says that we're asking them to become our slaves; it will not be true.

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 12:01 AM' timestamp='1273464086' post='2293197']
[b]Yet you have no understanding of what our decom orders are. For all you know they are "destroy your cruise missles"[/b]
Regardless, it's not as if we're giving them no quarter.
We are not a massive force like NPO. Even a temporarily demilitarized IRON is a formidable force to GRE. I have statistically proven that even if they destroyed all their nuclear missles that their rebuild rate is sufficient to almost guarantee a nuclear attack on [b]every Gremlin every day[/b]
If you want to refute my math, do that.
[/quote]
[u][b]Neither. Do. You.[/b][/u]

Also, by your own logic, if I find a single other alliance that has pre-emptively attacked an uninvolved party, I'm assuming you would attack them? Make them unconditionally surrender? Make them admit they were wrong? Take some non-existent high moral ground? Because the reps they paid [i]clearly[/i] weren't enough if they didn't apologize for their pre-emptive attack.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='10 May 2010 - 02:02 PM' timestamp='1273464139' post='2293200']
I don't need to. The precedent is horrible and cannot be allowed to be set under any circumstances.
[/quote]

Oh no! They arent being allowed to pay a few bribes and go their way while still pretending they have never done any wrong to anyone like before! What an awful precedent that could set!

(Well, yeah, if you are a serial criminal who would rather die than admit your wrongdoing that would be a bad precedent I suppose. Dont be surprised that the rest of the world isnt so upset about it.)

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 12:08 AM' timestamp='1273464465' post='2293207']
As far as I can tell, you are opposing a precedent that we are not even trying to set.

No mater how often Baldr says that we're asking them to become our slaves; it will not be true.
[/quote]
I'm opposing the precedent that you can force your opponent to decom military before allowing them to see the terms you will dictate. Stop putting other people's words in my mouth and pretending that I'm making that argument.

[Delta1212]

For the record, I honestly find the "C&G accepted a bribe to let IRON go" analogy hilariously dumb.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 10:45 PM' timestamp='1273463085' post='2293165']
I wish those signatories of the ESA hadn't let them off without any admission of culpability; but alas! without automobiles and asphalt I cannot get my Delorean to 88 miles per hour....
[/quote]

it does not matter whatsoever what you wish. that is what you need to realize here. what Gremlins want, wish, think, feel, whatever truly does not matter. what you wanted to happen didn't. what you feel should have happened didn't. what you think will happen won't. what you want to happen won't.

so again, you and Gremlins have effectively put themselves in the realm of not mattering to most in CN.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 10:47 PM' timestamp='1273463204' post='2293171']
If IRON is permitted to escape their clear wrongdoing with nothing but token reps then the entire cyberverse is wronged.
That is the entire basis of moral absolutes.

It's a shame that Gremlins are the only ones willing to put themselves are risk for this important endeavor. I with everybody would fulfill their moral obligation to stand against IRON's clear aggression.
[/quote]

except you are wrong. the entire cyberverse feels they are not wronged. thus, you are stating that Gremlins feels they are the moral police.

the Gremlins are the only ones who feel that way, thus of course you are the only ones willing to do this. it is unimportant to basically every single other person/alliance out there. to everyone else, including the [i]actual[/i] aggrieved party, the ESA ended the war and IRON has paid for their wrong.

[quote name='Ertyy' date='09 May 2010 - 10:47 PM' timestamp='1273463220' post='2293172']
Haha, I just get through saying how we don't think it matters whether or not the plan backfires or is stupid, and you respond by continuing on with the same irrelevant point. Good stuff.
[/quote]

well of course you will say it does not matter. since it was stupid and backfired, it is pretty much a given that you should say it is an unimportant thing. if you stated that it was important that ya'lls plan was stupid and backfired, then what exactly would that say?

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 11:08 PM' timestamp='1273464465' post='2293207']
As far as I can tell, you are opposing a precedent that we are not even trying to set.

No mater how often Baldr says that we're asking them to become our slaves; it will not be true.
[/quote]

the very action of doing it in the first place is trying to set the precedent, whether intended or not. if successful, the precedent will be set. thus, again your thoughts simply do not matter anymore.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='09 May 2010 - 11:09 PM' timestamp='1273464533' post='2293210']
Oh no! They arent being allowed to pay a few bribes and go their way while still pretending they have never done any wrong to anyone like before! What an awful precedent that could set!

(Well, yeah, if you are a serial criminal who would rather die than admit your wrongdoing that would be a bad precedent I suppose. Dont be surprised that the rest of the world isnt so upset about it.)
[/quote]

honestly, if CnG willingly took those bribes, that is their business and not yours, mine, nor Gremlins. If they don't really seem to care whether or not IRON admits to any sort of wrongdoing, again, their business, not yours, mine, nor Gremlins.

and it is quite obvious, that much of the rest of the world is actually not happy with what Gremlins is doing, regardless of whatever supposed wrongs IRON did or admitted to or apologized for or didn't admit to or didn't apologize for.

i find it amusing that you think you have the right to speak for CnG on something they categorically feel is closed and feel that Gremlins has the right to act on despite CnG categorically feel is over with.

since when did Gremlins become MK or CnG? for that matter, since when did you leave Nordreich and become the leader of any CnG alliance?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='09 May 2010 - 09:08 PM' timestamp='1273464514' post='2293208']
[u][b]Neither. Do. You.[/b][/u][/quote]

No longer true.

[quote]Also, by your own logic, if I find a single other alliance that has pre-emptively attacked an uninvolved party, I'm assuming you would attack them? Make them unconditionally surrender? Make them admit they were wrong? Take some non-existent high moral ground? Because the reps they paid [i]clearly[/i] weren't enough if they didn't apologize for their pre-emptive attack.
[/quote]

Be sure to send me a PM next time one comes up.
For ones a long time in the past I'd be happy to give my personal opinion on it... but something tells me you're not really interested in that.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='09 May 2010 - 09:10 PM' timestamp='1273464624' post='2293214']
I'm opposing the precedent that you can force your opponent to decom military before allowing them to see the terms you will dictate. Stop putting other people's words in my mouth and pretending that I'm making that argument.
[/quote]


Ok, then in that case we will have to agree to disagree.
I am personally of the opinion that IRON demilitarizing doesn't significantly impact their ability to make war on GRE; this would be different is the military situation were different.

[Ertyy]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='09 May 2010 - 09:17 PM' timestamp='1273465023' post='2293230']
well of course you will say it does not matter. since it was stupid and backfired, it is pretty much a given that you should say it is an unimportant thing. if you stated that it was important that ya'lls plan was stupid and backfired, then what exactly would that say?
[/quote]

You might have a point except that I gave an entirely valid alternative explanation for how we see things are going.

Also, I really don't like the implications that we are only now switching the rhetoric because we have lost more members. iirc I admitted in this thread like a week or so ago that we might lose. I have always accepted it as a possibility and it hasn't really figured into my position.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 May 2010 - 11:24 PM' timestamp='1273465453' post='2293242']
Ok, then in that case we will have to agree to disagree.
I am personally of the opinion that IRON demilitarizing doesn't significantly impact their ability to make war on GRE; this would be different is the military situation were different.
[/quote]

well in all honesty, your equation took into account all of Gre and all of IRON. so how about doing one based on just the nations over 50k NS or 70k NS. ya know, the nations where IRON could not possibly outnumber Gremlins 3 to 1 but where Gre could very well outnumber IRON 3 to 1 due to the fact that many of Gre's members will be hitting down in that range. What exactly happens to IRON's capabilities of hurting Gre if they were to demilitarize their nukes and navies then?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='09 May 2010 - 09:17 PM' timestamp='1273465023' post='2293230']
it does not matter whatsoever what you wish. that is what you need to realize here. what Gremlins want, wish, think, feel, whatever truly does not matter. what you wanted to happen didn't. what you feel should have happened didn't. what you think will happen won't. what you want to happen won't.

so again, you and Gremlins have effectively put themselves in the realm of not mattering to most in CN. [/quote]

I don't care.



[quote]except you are wrong. the entire cyberverse feels they are not wronged. thus, you are stating that Gremlins feels they are the moral police. [/quote]

Your argumentum ad populum is irrelevant.

[quote]the Gremlins are the only ones who feel that way, thus of course you are the only ones willing to do this. it is unimportant to basically every single other person/alliance out there. to everyone else, including the [i]actual[/i] aggrieved party, the ESA ended the war and IRON has paid for their wrong. [/quote]

Actually, I don't think I'm the only one who feels the way I do (even outside of GRE). I just think that others aren't as willing to put themselves at risk like I am.


[quote]the very action of doing it in the first place is trying to set the precedent, whether intended or not. if successful, the precedent will be set. thus, again your thoughts simply do not matter anymore.
[/quote]

Yet what most people here seem to think we're doing is not what we're going.
Also, what little faith you have in people that you think they will always blindly follow a precedent; pathetic.

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 12:21 AM' timestamp='1273465292' post='2293236']
No longer true.
[/quote]
Then it must be a terrible disappointment knowing that you won't get them.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='09 May 2010 - 09:30 PM' timestamp='1273465811' post='2293256']
Then it must be a terrible disappointment knowing that you won't get them.
[/quote]


If Gremlins doesn't get their terms, then it means that IRON escapes any valid restitution for their wrongdoings.

Yes, that would be a terrible disappointment.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='09 May 2010 - 11:28 PM' timestamp='1273465685' post='2293249']
You might have a point except that I gave an entirely valid alternative explanation for how we see things are going.

Also, I really don't like the implications that we are only now switching the rhetoric because we have lost more members. iirc I admitted in this thread like a week or so ago that we might lose. I have always accepted it as a possibility and it hasn't really figured into my position.
[/quote]

actually i do have a point as i gave a description of what will actually happen.

i don't know why you quoted me with that last paragraph as i have not stated any such thing.

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 May 2010 - 12:32 AM' timestamp='1273465916' post='2293258']
If Gremlins doesn't get their terms, then it means that IRON escapes any valid restitution for their wrongdoings.

Yes, that would be a terrible disappointment.
[/quote]
Well, we can't pay for them with you standing in the way like that. All those reps that should be going rightfully to CnG are just sitting here in our hands while you play your little word games.