The New Grämlins

[Lennox]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 08:56 PM' timestamp='1270083387' post='2242702']
An unfortunate impasse
[/quote]

You will crumble before they will.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 08:44 PM' timestamp='1270082681' post='2242678']
A little infrastructure? If that's all we risk then I find it hard to believe you think anybody else risks more.

"significant risk" refers to infrastructure, friendships, leaders, ideas... paradigms.
[/quote]

So them going into peace mode puts your infrastructure, friendships, leaders, ideas and paradigms at risk. Looks like IRON has some brilliant military commanders.

And you still have yet to say anything about the fact that this move will in fact prolong the war. Separating your terms away from CnG only makes it that much more difficult to attain peace. I know IRON, and they will certainly not acquiesce your wish for unconditional surrender. Which is still ridiculous, by the way. It might be plausible to say it's rational, but it's definitely not the most rational move.

[Gerald Meanĕ]

[quote name='Jonathan Brookbank' date='01 April 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1270080363' post='2242623']
Oh, gosh...that's a good one. For one thing, I've been government for all of 38 days now. For another, \m/ is one of the few alliances I can pretty much guarantee you will not see a treaty from the GGA with.
[/quote]

As a \m/ triumvir allow me to address this with an official response.

*ahem*

You are a big meanie head. Good day to you sir.

[merlin]

As you all know, I am a huge fan of IRON. I have long supported their policies and even have good personal relationships with many of their high-profile members. I would go as far as to say that if I were ever to leave the ODN I would probably join IRON. Please take my bias into account when reading this post.

Gramlins, I do not agree with your position concerning the surrender of IRON. It seems to me that you might feel trapped to an extent by making certain demands; if you were to back down it could be construed as a "victory" for IRON or the OWF rabble. I would like to remind you that there are far more potent ways to demonstrate strength than simple obstinance.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='01 April 2010 - 11:05 AM' timestamp='1270083938' post='2242721']
I agree![/quote]
If you agree that your opinion is a load of !@#$ without this clarification as to what it is you're actually talking about, why are you bothering to inflict it on the OWF?

Edited April 1, 2010 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='31 March 2010 - 05:10 PM' timestamp='1270084191' post='2242727']
so in the DoW from Gremlins you bound yourself to the CnG side but now in peace you state you are no longer bound? that is simply ridiculous. [/quote]
I joined to defend friends.

[quote]if you hold yourself to a higher standard than the codex and you do not find the terms offered to IRON to be humiliating, then your standard is actually much lower than the codex. like i said, i doubt Gre would ever accept terms like the ones being offered. you keep stating that there is negotiations involved in unconditional surrenders. you obviously have no understanding of what unconditional surrender is then. unconditional surrender means that the party accepting it has no say whatsoever in what terms they are given. there is no negotiation between victor and defeated only dictation. if IRON were to comply with unconditional surrender, Gre will be capable of doing anything they wish to IRON and IRON can do nothing. if IRON chooses to reneg on the deal, the fact that they are disarmed will make them easy prey to Gremlins. [/quote]

I disagree. In a war of this scale infra loss and anarchy is practically guaranteed. IRON nations are able to retrain soldiers and tanks instantly, on a whim. DEFCON can be changed at update. The only "long-term" consequence is nuclear stockpile... which is something which would be diminished at the conclusion of any war.

[quote]so how exactly is that no humiliating? you wish to take the very sovereignty of IRON from them and wrest it fully into the hands of Gre. in fact, should IRON comply with Gre's demands, then Gre can very well tell IRON they have to break all other peace agreements between IRON and CnG/Allies. [/quote]

IRON can, at any time, stop compliance and return to a state of war.

[quote]then there is the fact that you have not even offered any actual terms. again this breaks the Codex given the Codex demands that Gremlins go in with pretty much set terms for surrender. those terms were given, then taken off the table and thus that also breaks the Codex. [/quote]
We somewhat agree here. We had an idea of terms when we began but the situation changed and we are adapting.

[quote]The Codex is nothing more than a shattered memorial to the Gremlins who once was. a shadow of a document from the Gremlins i was once part of. much like Gremlins itself. there are still many good members in Gre and it saddens me that they are allowing Ramirus to destroy everything that Gre once held dear. the fact that you, who i once held in high regard, is trying to defend these actions is saddening.
[/quote]

GINO?
We are changing many things about GRE; I've suggested a name change as well... but that's a maybe on down the road.

If anybody has an opinion of me based solely on the name of my alliance then I suggest they re-evaluate it (though I'm certain they are anyway)
We have never claimed to be the GRE "of old" that's just been peoples' expectation.

[DemonSpawn]

So correct me if im wrong, but from what I've read, IRON needs to decom all military, military wonders, and military improvements, before Gremlins will even begin to discuss actual surrender terms?

^^If what I asked above is indeed correct, then this is the biggest peice of piss poor conduct since well before the Karma war.

And please, keep R&R's name out of your mouths. We aren't involved in this, at this time.

[Ubermeir]

Seems that securing terms and signing a treaty to make those terms a reality are two seperate things. This war could have been done a long time ago.
Overreaction to bump in road is making mountain out of inflamatory molehill. Everyone has been working towards peace, I expect so long as noone does anything ffoolish, holds tongue about way war started, that the status quo will find a way to overcome this unexpected turn of events.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 06:59 PM' timestamp='1270079949' post='2242612']
None of you have a basis for calling GRE cruel, maligned, tyrants nor anything of the sort because you have nothing to use against us. We have offered no crippling peace terms.
[/quote]

If your plans were to offer IRON white peace, you could do that now, without making yourself look like the cruel tyrants. What you are asking is that the decom military, come out of peace mode, get rid of any and every option they have - and then allow you to tell them what to do, for as long as you see fit. Anything goes, including attacking them again, demanding they sell off 100% of their infra, sending you 100% of their tech, and never buying infra again, ever.

After all - you haven't been willing to give terms, and are asking for unconditional surrender.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 07:18 PM' timestamp='1270081119' post='2242634']
I'm looking forward to a speedy end to hostilities.
[/quote]

Obviously not, or you wouldn't be being such a jerk. If you offered reasonable terms, they would take them. Heck, they apparently thought that they had *agreed* to your terms - then you changed your mind.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 07:53 PM' timestamp='1270083188' post='2242694']
On the codex: I hold myself to a standard which I consider higher than the codex.
Despite that, I don't see a humiliating term nor a term I would not accept.
[/quote]

The first time you are losing a war, this statement is likely to come back to haunt you. Would you really surrender and agree to "Anything they want to do to us is OK"? Really?

I doubt it. I know I wouldn't.

Personally, I think the CnG crowd should come to an agreement, and like most agreements, they should protect those who surrender. Then if you guys keep acting like this, they wipe you out for being such idiots, and tell you "You'll be at war until you surrender unconditionally".

At the very least, that would allow them to start collecting reps from this war, instead of having to wait because of Gramlins.

I don't expect them to do that. But I could see them making an agreement with the alliances who are wanting to surrender, and then stopping their wars. If you guys want to continue the beatdown, they can make you fight alone.

No matter how it happens, right now Gramlins is looking pretty bad to most people, including people who don't even like IRON and people who do like Gramlins.

[Sephiroth]

Syzygy really was the last true Gremlins, by the time he left to help TOP on his own I realized the old Gremlins were already gone. When Gremlins betraying TOP doesn't become a joke anymore its no longer funny.

Gremlins need to realize who they are and what they stood for, seems they've lost their way somewhere.

In my opinion Ramirus has done more damage to both Gremlins and Citadel than any other individual or outside alliance. Good job turning Gremlins from one of the most respected alliance into one of the least respected alliances.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Methrage

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='DemonSpawn' date='31 March 2010 - 05:26 PM' timestamp='1270085175' post='2242740']
So correct me if im wrong, but from what I've read, IRON needs to decom all military, military wonders, and military improvements, before Gremlins will even begin to discuss actual surrender terms?

^^If what I asked above is indeed correct, then this is the biggest peice of piss poor conduct since well before the Karma war.

And please, keep R&R's name out of your mouths. We aren't involved in this, at this time.
[/quote]
You're wrong.

[Schad]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 08:25 PM' timestamp='1270085121' post='2242738']
IRON can, at any time, stop compliance and return to a state of war.
[/quote]

They certainly could. It would serve no useful purpose to do so and leave them a shattered shell of an alliance within days, though, and for that reason it's not a particularly likely circumstance.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 08:25 PM' timestamp='1270085121' post='2242738']
I joined to defend friends.[/quote]

and now you are keeping those friends in a war. congrats...



[quote]I disagree. In a war of this scale infra loss and anarchy is practically guaranteed. IRON nations are able to retrain soldiers and tanks instantly, on a whim. DEFCON can be changed at update. The only "long-term" consequence is nuclear stockpile... which is something which would be diminished at the conclusion of any war.[/quote]

umm.... since we have no idea what disarmament actually entails then you cannot simply state it will be as simple as soldiers and tanks and defcon change. not to mention, there is the small fact that if they are ordered to decom all soldiers, they will end up in anarchy which means not offensive wars for them. thus no way to even attempt to surprise attack Gremlins.



[quote]IRON can, at any time, stop compliance and return to a state of war.[/quote]

while under terms from CnG, which will most likely ask for something along the lines of not returning to a state of war with anyone from the war. yes, good option for IRON. go back to war with you and thus break all the other peace agreements they had...


[quote]We somewhat agree here. We had an idea of terms when we began but the situation changed and we are adapting.[/quote]

so you agree then that you broke the Codex? the situation never changed, if you went in thinking that Gremlins would not be hit hard, then that is plain stupid. seriously, IRON was not a rollover alliance the last time Gre hit, why would you suspect they would be now?



[quote]GINO?
We are changing many things about GRE; I've suggested a name change as well... but that's a maybe on down the road.

If anybody has an opinion of me based solely on the name of my alliance then I suggest they re-evaluate it (though I'm certain they are anyway)
We have never claimed to be the GRE "of old" that's just been peoples' expectation.
[/quote]

unfortunately, you are changing Gre for the worst which is just sad. as for my opinion of you, it is not based on what alliance you are in, it is based on what i know of you.

well, if you do not wish to be taken as the old Gre, then you should publicly get rid of certain things such as the Codex. your treaty policy was something that changed some, though not much considering how it actually went. (i.e. you got rid of paper but the friendship stayed) so if you do not wish to be taken as the Gre of old, i highly suggest you get rid of the things about the old Gre you no longer hold as valuable, such as the Codex. and do so publicly, this way there can be no mistake you are no longer the "old" Gremlins.

[DemonSpawn]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 08:33 PM' timestamp='1270085573' post='2242745']
You're wrong.
[/quote]

Ok, then please enlighten me. I'd like some very clear varification on this. To me it seems as if GRE wants IRON to dismantle their forces, before GRE will even discuss terms.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 08:33 PM' timestamp='1270085573' post='2242745']
You're wrong.
[/quote]

how can you even attempt to state he is wrong? you yourself has stated that the terms currently offered are so ambiguous that they have no actual meaning at the moment. thus, he could very well be right or wrong. unfortunately until the terms are clarified, it is a 50/50 shot. and that is what is ruining Gremlin's reputation.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='DemonSpawn' date='31 March 2010 - 05:38 PM' timestamp='1270085883' post='2242752']
Ok, then please enlighten me. I'd like some very clear varification on this. To me it seems as if GRE wants IRON to dismantle their forces, before GRE will even discuss terms.
[/quote]
You're right. IRON should dismantle their forces.

Though GRE did not tell IRON that IRON had to destroy military wonders, improvements and hold zero soldiers. That is speculation.

[Finch]

Wow Gremlins has changed since I was in it poor show, but at the same time I cant say I am supprised.

[DemonSpawn]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 08:41 PM' timestamp='1270086047' post='2242755']
You're right. IRON should dismantle their forces.

Though GRE did not tell IRON that IRON had to destroy military wonders, improvements and hold zero soldiers. That is speculation.
[/quote]

Ok, so they have to dismantle their fighting forces, and then your will then give them their surrender terms?

[Lennox]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 09:33 PM' timestamp='1270085573' post='2242745']
You're wrong.
[/quote]

You have three hands. I can play this game too.

[Lincongrad]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Gramlins guy confess he was drunk and say that that wasn't by any means final and that they would discuss it tomorrow? If he had actually pushed this through then it would be a majorly tyrannical thing, but since he apologized and said they'd talk about it tomorrow, everything depends on what he decides tomorrow when he's not drunk.

[Lord Curzon]

This decision is absurd. I think we all know that. Any attempt to justify Gre's blatantly selfish demands is laughable. Fact of the matter is you guys wish to indefinably put a cap of IRON's high end NS and are holding a once sanctioned alliance economically hostage to the whims of your megalomaniac ruler. Faced with eternal war (and it is eternal unless your terms are revised) you will stunt IRON's growth and significantly decrease IRON's ability to pay reparations the truly aggrieved parties. You have also, for no apparent reason extended this ultimatum to DAWN, and did not even have the decency to inform them directly. Unless I am mistaken, the first DAWN gov heard of your demands was from a gov member of tidtt.

It is despicable that you claim to have entered in support of your friends because the situation you are creating demonstrates a complete disregard for the well being of your "friends". I hope that those who previously considered you friends will recognize that your involvement in this war had no relation to your supposed bonds of friendship. I think this decision confirms initial suspicions that your decision to go "paperless" was an act of selfish cowardice, not an attempt to foster true friendship. To be quite frank I see no point in arguing circles with individuals who reject reason and hence this will be my only post in this thread.

I would like to praise on the leaders of CnG. You guys have acted in good faith throughout this fiasco and have been working tirelessly on behalf of tidtt and the honorable segment of your coalition. I can only imagine how frustrating it would be to try and reason with your "friends" in Gre. I wish you luck and thank you.

[WarriorConcept]

Disappointing showing by gremlins. Hopefully this all gets resolved quickly and my friends in CnG can move on from this war, as well as the world in general.

[Lennox]

[quote name='Lincongrad' date='31 March 2010 - 09:45 PM' timestamp='1270086322' post='2242762']
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Gramlins guy confess he was drunk and say that that wasn't by any means final and that they would discuss it tomorrow? If he had actually pushed this through then it would be a majorly tyrannical thing, but since he apologized and said they'd talk about it tomorrow, everything depends on what he decides tomorrow when he's not drunk.
[/quote]

Over the past few months the gremlins have shown there is no difference between when they are drunk and when they aren't.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Lincongrad' date='01 April 2010 - 02:45 AM' timestamp='1270086322' post='2242762']
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Gramlins guy confess he was drunk and say that that wasn't by any means final and that they would discuss it tomorrow? If he had actually pushed this through then it would be a majorly tyrannical thing, but since he apologized and said they'd talk about it tomorrow, everything depends on what he decides tomorrow when he's not drunk.
[/quote]

Actually I believe this conversation took place a few nights ago and the talk of the day after apparently had the same content.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Lusitan

[Jake Liebenow]

[quote name='Lincongrad' date='31 March 2010 - 08:45 PM' timestamp='1270086322' post='2242762']
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Gramlins guy confess he was drunk and say that that wasn't by any means final and that they would discuss it tomorrow? If he had actually pushed this through then it would be a majorly tyrannical thing, but since he apologized and said they'd talk about it tomorrow, everything depends on what he decides tomorrow when he's not drunk.
[/quote]

Wow, you're behind.

Mmkay, basically, what he said was the official .gov stance. Him being drunk didn't really change much.