The New Grämlins

[Bob Janova]

[quote]I am not here to debate the base facts of this with you, Bob.[/quote]
No, you're here to throw about ill-informed opinion dressed up as fact, and to try to bait IRON and DAWN into doing something stupid. If you were here to debate the facts you would note that IRON didn't declare war on Grämlins but instead on MK who were not Grämlins' treaty partner at that time – and furthermore that if they were originally defending MK they can no longer be claimed to be doing so since MK have left the war, satisfied with the settlement they came to.

Considering you are now an ally of IRON I expect someone to come along and tell you that trying to bait them into suicide isn't all that classy.

[quote]the terms aren't 'disbandment' or 'viceroy'. They're probably white peace or very light reps.[/quote]
The terms are 'surrender unconditionally and demilitarise and then see what we have for you', which could mean absolutely anything.

[quote]Or you could walk away with white peace. I saw a lot of talk about how your side was going to end the tit-for-tat reparations and stop asking for them just to get back at Karma members. Now that we see you about to come out on top of your first war since Karma, we see that you've already abandoned that mantra and do want your tasty, tasty reps. How hypocritical of you.[/quote]
Like all of Supergrievances did – oh, wait. Even Karma/SG alliances (amusingly enough you, Penkala, are now nominally on the other side after your latest alliance hop, but you're clearly still SG in spirit) have always acknowledged that reps are fine if the circumstances are right, and in fact have issued the two largest reparation demands in history. You may not agree but there is a good case that Grämlins, through their unnecessary and unreasonable actions, have caused significant extra and needless damage to IRON and DAWN and should be asked to pay for that – a similar line of argument to that which was used to justify the large reps for TPF in Karma.

However, so far IRON and DAWN have consistently said that white peace is available, right from when Polar bailed out on them in January up to this Grämlins phase of the war, so you're probably going to be deprived of even that soapbox.

[Clash]

[quote name='Penkala' date='22 May 2010 - 06:00 PM' timestamp='1274572823' post='2308552']
Nobody's winning in this one, I can assure you.

Gremlins is dying, and even the dying corpse is strong enough to keep IRON cowering in peace mode.

This whole thing is just so pathetic.

I believe it's been pointed out that Gremlins is allied to MK, just not on paper. Most people accept that. The only people don't are IRON sympathizers who want to make this out to be an offensive war on Gremlins' part, and their agenda is clear.
[/quote]
Another who fails to see peace mode as a valid war tactic.
Even when it's working.

IRON is growing (like DAWN is), albeit slowly. Gremlins are shrinking.
IRON and DAWN are winning - Gremlins is losing.

I think "just not on paper" just doesn't count. Sure it counts as friends and all that. Yay for friendship but that doesn't make it a defensive war. Anyone can claim friendship at any time, but it's not an excuse. By your rationale anyone can declare on anyone at any time and it's OK if they merely claim to be friends. They can just use that as an excuse. It's never an offensive war, always a defensive war - they were defending their friends after all. Well, I don't think it works that way, not on the world stage. There are definitely offensive wars and defensive wars. When Gremlins declared on IRON without any treaties to use for a reason, see, THAT was an offensive war. This one counts as offensive by Gremlins.

As a counter-argument, using your rationale. By your logic, any alliance in CN that wants to can now declare war on Gremlims just by claiming friendship with IRON, and it's automatically a defensive war. They are defending their friends even without a treaty. Is that going to work? I don't think it would and I don't think anyone would perceive it that way. It doesn't work the other way either.

IRON did not DoW on Gremlims.
Gremlims DoWed on IRON.
I don't think that should be confusing.

[Coursca]

Clash, just ignore Penkala. Eventually he'll (try to) join IRON and will find someone else to annoy just like he did with NSO.

Seriously, dude, save the keystrokes. Take it from a former IRON Councilor who dealt with this kind of thing daily at one point: he'll keep going if you keep replying.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Clash' date='22 May 2010 - 05:39 PM' timestamp='1274575126' post='2308579']
As a counter-argument, using your rationale. By your logic, any alliance in CN that wants to can now declare war on Gremlims just by claiming friendship with IRON, and it's automatically a defensive war. They are defending their friends even without a treaty. Is that going to work? I don't think it would and I don't think anyone would perceive it that way. It doesn't work the other way either.

IRON did not DoW on Gremlims.
Gremlims DoWed on IRON.
I don't think that should be confusing.
[/quote]

You're ignore the very basis of this entire war is that IRON [b]initiated[/b] military hostilities with an unwarranted attack.

It's a pretty sad world you seem to live in which is ruled by little pieces of paper rather than relationships.

"Any responsive action without a little piece of paper authorizing it is inherently aggressive"
That is absolutely pathetic.

When people defended KofN against Athens' aggression they were not, themselves, becoming aggressors.
I realize that life is less confusing for people when lines are drawn like that... in worlds where pieces of paper give you cause to act instead of any other imperatives.
I find it hard to believe that you live with such myopia.

Edited May 23, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='Penkala' date='22 May 2010 - 03:45 PM' timestamp='1274561121' post='2308349']If you were the one who took the cancer and put it in your body, if the cancer was doing no damage to you, [/quote]
Yes, because going to war in an aggressive fashion means that you deserve the absolute worst. (Gre also went in offensively.)

[quote]if you could just tell the cancer "OK stop I give" and it would go away, [/quote]
If IRON surrenders, they could well be giving up their arms and legs.

[quote]if you could have had your friends help you cure the cancer earlier, [/quote]
So you're advocating for an [i]earlier[/i] pre-emptive attack?

[quote]and if a surgeon could just go in and cut the cancer out, [/quote]
The only people who can do that are Gre's friends in MHA, CnG, and SF.


Remind me to leave any war coordinated by Penkala if I'm on the same side.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 May 2010 - 05:34 PM' timestamp='1274574866' post='2308574']
The terms are 'surrender unconditionally and demilitarise and then see what we have for you', which could mean absolutely anything.
[/quote]

A surrender precedes terms.

And yes, we could offer any terms we want (that's the basis of unconditional surrender; they don't get to place conditions on the terms)

But you have no idea what demilitarization orders will be nor is a surrendering party obligated to accept terms by surrendering.

[Clash]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='22 May 2010 - 06:56 PM' timestamp='1274576179' post='2308596']
You're ignore the very basis of this entire war is that IRON [b]initiated[/b] military hostilities with an unwarranted attack.

It's a pretty sad world you seem to live in which is ruled by little pieces of paper rather than relationships.

"Any responsive action without a little piece of paper authorizing it is inherently aggressive"
That is absolutely pathetic.

When people defended KofN against Athens' aggression they were not, themselves, becoming aggressors.
I realize that life is less confusing for people when lines are drawn like that... in worlds where pieces of paper give you cause to act instead of any other imperatives.
I find it hard to believe that you live with such myopia.
[/quote]
Oh yes condensation and insults make your points so much better, nor does making up a quote and claiming it's mine. Ignoring my logic with red herrings won't change it's strength. By your logic, anyone may now justifiably declare war on Gremlims just by claiming friendship with IRON - just because they want to. Well, I don't think they'd get away with that - and neither are you.

As Bob pointed out, the initial wars have been peaced - certainly since then, Gremlims has an offensive war even by your warped standards? Gremlins [b]initiated[/b] military hostilities with an unwarranted attack in the first place - now they continue to do so. Gremlins is not defending anyone. Period.

You're losing both the war and these arguments.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='22 May 2010 - 06:58 PM' timestamp='1274576321' post='2308602']
A surrender precedes terms.

And yes, we could offer any terms we want (that's the basis of unconditional surrender; they don't get to place conditions on the terms)

But you have no idea what demilitarization orders will be nor is a surrendering party obligated to accept terms by surrendering.[/quote]
Why should IRON surrender to Gremlims when they are winning? IRON gets to do what they want.
It seems more likely Gremlims should surrender to IRON.

[Penkala]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 May 2010 - 08:34 PM' timestamp='1274574866' post='2308574']
The terms are 'surrender unconditionally and demilitarise and then see what we have for you', which could mean absolutely anything.[/quote]

Indeed. And they're [i]probably[/i] pretty light. Plus, if once they surrender they don't like the terms, they can just go back to being at war with Gremlins.

[quote]
Like all of Supergrievances did – oh, wait. Even Karma/SG alliances (amusingly enough you, Penkala, are now nominally on the other side after your latest alliance hop, but you're clearly still SG in spirit) have always acknowledged that reps are fine if the circumstances are right, and in fact have issued the two largest reparation demands in history. You may not agree but there is a good case that Grämlins, through their unnecessary and unreasonable actions, have caused significant extra and needless damage to IRON and DAWN and should be asked to pay for that – a similar line of argument to that which was used to justify the large reps for TPF in Karma.[/quote]

I'm still wondering how they caused 'significant' costs to IRON/DAWN seeing as they have very, very, very, very, very limited engagement.

[quote]However, so far IRON and DAWN have consistently said that white peace is available, right from when Polar bailed out on them in January up to this Grämlins phase of the war, so you're probably going to be deprived of even that soapbox.
[/quote]

If an IRON gov member could clarify that white peace is available I'd be done with that argument, yes. But everything I've seen has hinted towards reps recently.

[quote]Another who fails to see peace mode as a valid war tactic.
Even when it's working.[/quote]

I'm tired of responding to people who won't read. Go read and try again. I've acknowledged it as a valid tactic like a half dozen times in this thread alone, in the last 3 pages alone. Quit twisting my words.

[quote]I think "just not on paper" just doesn't count. Sure it counts as friends and all that. Yay for friendship but that doesn't make it a defensive war. Anyone can claim friendship at any time, but it's not an excuse.[/quote]

Where was your treaty mandating you attack CnG? Oh? There wasn't one? Then why did you do it if it wasn't valid? War can (and should) be declared in defense of friends who have been unjustly attacked, treaty or not.

[quote]When Gremlins declared on IRON without any treaties to use for a reason, see, THAT was an offensive war. This one counts as offensive by Gremlins.[/quote]

Once again, the only people who sees Gremlins moves as offensive are those who have a vested interest in portraying them as such. It is common sense that since you attacked their friends, their retaliation is a [i]defensive war[/i], on the [i]defensive side[/i] of the war.

[quote]As a counter-argument, using your rationale. By your logic, any alliance in CN that wants to can now declare war on Gremlims just by claiming friendship with IRON, and it's automatically a defensive war. They are defending their friends even without a treaty. Is that going to work? I don't think it would and I don't think anyone would perceive it that way. It doesn't work the other way either.[/quote]

Not really seeing as IRON attacked offensively. I don't buy the 'Helping your friends wage offensive war == DEFENSE OF ALLIES' argument, sorry. It'd be helping a friend (offensively attack another alliance).

[quote]IRON did not DoW on Gremlims.
Gremlims DoWed on IRON.
I don't think that should be confusing. [/quote]

IRON DoW'd on Gremlins' Ally
Gremlins declared on IRON
I don't think that should be confusing -- defense of an ally. As clear cut as it gets. Just because it's a 'DoW thread' (which every offensive AND defensive war involves) doesn't make it an aggressive war.

The only issue is that when they were done defending their ally, they continued the war.

[quote]Clash, just ignore Penkala. Eventually he'll (try to) join IRON and will find someone else to annoy just like he did with NSO.

Seriously, dude, save the keystrokes. Take it from a former IRON Councilor who dealt with this kind of thing daily at one point: he'll keep going if you keep replying. [/quote]

I will never, ever join IRON.

[quote]
Yes, because going to war in an aggressive fashion means that you deserve the absolute worst. (Gre also went in offensively.)[/quote]

That's a lie.

[code]If IRON surrenders, they could well be giving up their arms and legs.[/code]

But based upon Gremlins' history, there will probably be light terms. And besides, IRON could just 'unsurrender' pretty easily. It's just words.

[code]So you're advocating for an earlier pre-emptive attack?[/code]

Nope. Saying that maybe their allies who had the capability to stop Gre shouldn't have walked off the battlefield. Then they could militarily defeat Gremlins in a couple weeks.

[code]A surrender precedes terms. [/code]

You're being stubborn where you don't need to be. You can demand their terms and surrender and let them know ahead of time what the terms will be, no negotiation allowed. Then the public would probably be on your side if the terms are fair.

Edited May 23, 2010 by Penkala

[The Warrior]

[quote name='Penkala' date='22 May 2010 - 09:26 PM' timestamp='1274559956' post='2308326']
My problem is with the whining over a half dozen threads and over 200 pages of posts. It's ridiculous. If you're going to take a 'wait them out' approach, quit complaining about how long it's taking. If it's taking too long, then gather some outsiders and attack them. If neither of these are acceptable, surrender. It's really that simple. But whining when YOU took the strategy of continuing the war for months is annoying.

And yes, you are whining. And you are complaining.

[snip]

Once again, pushing it. If I were SG I wouldn't allow IRON/DAWN to demand reps, especially when they're taking virtually no damage.
[/quote]

You really don't get strategy at all, do you? I believe that if you briefly skim the last 200 pages of this thread you will see no reason why we would have to whine about anything.

Key Points of this war:

IRON NS chart - On the rise.
Gramlin NS chart - Headed towards hell.

IRON support - Increasing. Coming from people who didn't used to care for us.
Gramlin support - Wait a minute? What support?

The only whining in this thread is the result of one particular Gramlin giving awful responses to questions asked of him. Oh and the whining from one other person about IRON not blitzing GRE like idiots so that we will get crushed.

[quote name='shahenshah' date='22 May 2010 - 09:43 PM' timestamp='1274560963' post='2308345']
You...seem...to...be...whining...the...most, uMad?

The strategy is simple atm, minimize cost and maximize damage.

War is imposed on us for a stupid reason, and we'll continue to share opinion on it as long as it persists. War ends when Gre decides to accept our offer. They are the bottleneck.
[/quote]

This.

[Clash]

Taking points out of context from the original statement doesn't give your arguments weight, Penkala. My argument stands together and should be addressed that way if your counterargument is to have merit. Your scattered and fractured reply makes for further cluttered and convoluted replies. Shall I now take every piece of quote you have and reply to them, resulting in a massive wall of text that no longer resembles the original argument? All it becomes is a bunch of small, confusing, out-of-context and petty arguments - like your post. I shall spare everyone that.

If that's the best you can do, you aren't worth further answering.

[quote name='Coursca' date='22 May 2010 - 06:45 PM' timestamp='1274575514' post='2308584']
Clash, just ignore Penkala. Eventually he'll (try to) join IRON and will find someone else to annoy just like he did with NSO.

Seriously, dude, save the keystrokes. Take it from a former IRON Councilor who dealt with this kind of thing daily at one point: he'll keep going if you keep replying.
[/quote]
Oh yeah he's a waste of time, his last post shows that. He just wants to argue.
Thanks

[Baldr]

[quote name='Penkala' date='22 May 2010 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1274570394' post='2308513']
Or you could walk away with white peace. I saw a lot of talk about how your side was going to end the tit-for-tat reparations and stop asking for them just to get back at Karma members. Now that we see you about to come out on top of your first war since Karma, we see that you've already abandoned that mantra and [i]do[/i] want your tasty, tasty reps. How hypocritical of you.[/quote]

Again with the lies.

IRON and DAWN have been offering white peace. I'm pretty sure that's still on the table at this point.

However, they have also said that if Gramlins keeps up their nonsense long enough, that they reserve the right to say "Fine, you did enough damage, and drug this out long enough, so we're going to expect something more".

The problem isn't that IRON hasn't offered white peace, is that Gramlins won't back off from their "Surrender and become our slaves" stupidity.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Baldr' date='22 May 2010 - 10:08 PM' timestamp='1274580484' post='2308668']
Again with the lies.

IRON and DAWN have been offering white peace. I'm pretty sure that's still on the table at this point.

However, they have also said that if Gramlins keeps up their nonsense long enough, that they reserve the right to say "Fine, you did enough damage, and drug this out long enough, so we're going to expect something more".
[/quote]

Actually if IRON has the sense god didn't bestow upon the Gramlins they'll keep the offer for white peace up no matter what, Its sorta the final nail in the PR coffin. Asking for reps gives Gre a wedge to use, IRON keeps the white peace up and this whole thing will remain nothing but a disaster for Gre.

[Baldr]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='22 May 2010 - 09:13 PM' timestamp='1274580763' post='2308672']
Actually if IRON has the sense god didn't bestow upon the Gramlins they'll keep the offer for white peace up no matter what, Its sorta the final nail in the PR coffin. Asking for reps gives Gre a wedge to use, IRON keeps the white peace up and this whole thing will remain nothing but a disaster for Gre.
[/quote]

You are probably right. Personally, I think IRON should require each Gramlin to send 50 tech. That would be low reps, easy to pay, and it would keep Gramlins from some future "We didn't lose that war" spin.

The thought of IRON telling Gramlins "Unconditional surrender is your only option to end this" is amusing, but despite how well deserved it would be, I'd be opposed.

[Crymson]

[quote name='Baldr' date='22 May 2010 - 08:37 PM' timestamp='1274582208' post='2308689']
You are probably right. Personally, I think IRON should require each Gramlin to send 50 tech. That would be low reps, easy to pay, and it would keep Gramlins from some future "We didn't lose that war" spin.

The thought of IRON telling Gramlins "Unconditional surrender is your only option to end this" is amusing, but despite how well deserved it would be, I'd be opposed.
[/quote]

It would appear that with every Gramlin who has a shred of morality having left the alliance, the Gramlins` membership numbers have stabilized, as the vast majority of those left in the alliance are either the cronies or the inactives.

It must feel great for an alliance to lose more than half its strength [b]after[/b] the end of the war at large in which they had been participating. Well, I'm enjoying watching it, and so are many others, and so perhaps the fact that you're making some of us pretty happy by your death from the inside will make you feel a little fulfilled. o/

Edited May 23, 2010 by Crymson

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Penkala' date='22 May 2010 - 01:12 PM' timestamp='1274551910' post='2308191']
You do realize that this is a [i]war[/i] and that wars do hurt, right? Because IRON seems to forget that. I'm sure you wish war could consist of a DoW and then surrender terms with no real fighting, but that's not the way it works. My point stands: If you want to end this, you can fight.[/quote]

Where were you when SG's top tier went into PM during the Blue Balls War? oh wait, you were probably saying how good of an idea that was...

[quote]All I see here is a bunch of whining about the downsides of fighting, and wanting to rebuild, and not wanting to lose infra. Guess what? There's someone not letting you surrender. If you want to end this, it's going to hurt a little bit. It's not our fault that IRON's unwilling to buckle down and do what needs to be done. And most of us are tired of hearing you whine when you're fully capable of doing something to end this yourself. You just don't want to engage their nations because they're 'scary'. No, SG will not attack their nations for you. Sorry. You have to do it. So either work up the courage and attack Gremlins' nations, or [u]quit whining that they won't give you peace.[/u] You have the ability to force a compromise. It's [u]your[/u] fault you're not taking it, not anyone else's.[/quote]

Hurt a little bit is one thing. what you want IRON to do is hurt themselves a lot by doing something so utterly stupid that only the stupidest and most incompetent of individuals would suggest it.

who is whining that they won't give us peace? most are stating that they will not surrender unconditionally to Gremlins and that white peace is on the table. those are statements not whines.


[quote][b][i][u]THEN FIGHT.[/u][/i][/b] Seriously, how do you guys not comprehend that there are TWO choices: Fight or surrender unconditionally? Yes, both will hurt! This IS, after all, a war! Pick your poison. Or at least quit whining while you sit here doing nothing and nothing changes.[/quote]

there seems to be a third choice you do not comprehend at all.


[quote]Well, first, I don't think you understand what the word 'competent' means. And the only one here 'disregarding' things is you and IRON, who completely disregard the fact that you're in a [b]war[/b]. You need to man up and make a choice to fight them or surrender. Sitting here like babies and crying is unacceptable. YOU are the ones who started this war. It's too damn bad that you don't want to take damage anymore and don't want to surrender. You got yourself into this mess. Quit crying and get yourself out.[/quote]

you keep talking about people whining while all i hear you do is blubber on about how you are so right and we are wrong. sorry that we are not idiots that will pull the stupidest move that you wish us to pull. Yes, IRON is the one who started this war, CnG ended that war. Gremlins, for basically no justifiable reason is keepin it going.

and we are working on getting ourselves out. so how about you quit crying that IRON won't destroy their upper tier for your amusement because you are a fool who has shown he knows little bout strategy and tactics.

[quote]No, you're literally sitting there whining. The reason Gremlins is losing strength is because most of her members are very good people who find this situation unacceptable and are leaving. If you tried your 'tactics' with someone else absolutely nothing would happen, because, to be honest, your 'actions' are having absolutely no impact.[/quote]

again, this whole thing right here shows not only your incompetence but your bias considering SG pulled this same tactic during the BBW. the only difference is the BBW did not last that long. had it though, i doubt SG would have banzai charged all their upper NS nations into the onslaught that faced them. Why, because it is utterly stupid and only a fool and an idiot would do that move.

you keep stating the same thing over and over again, yet you have provided no reasoning why your options are tactically sound at all. it seems you just want to talk out your $@! and act as if you are either smart or admin's gift to warfare. you have shown you are neither one of those. you have little to no understanding of tactics nor does your memory seem to be intact considering you fail to remember SG pullin the same tactic and it being hailed as wonderful by most on SG's side.

[quote name='Penkala' date='22 May 2010 - 01:33 PM' timestamp='1274553169' post='2308205']
This is exactly what I came back to say. Reading further I see that you guys are trying to take credit for 'grinding' Gremlins? HAHAHAHAHA. That's awesome. Gremlins members are leaving because they disagree with their government, not because you're attacking them or grinding them. You're not winning, Gremlins is defeating themselves. I hope you don't plan on revising history [i]already[/i].

And I'd like to echo Synth: You've chosen the 'wait them out' tactic. Quit whining about how long it's taking. It's your own fault. That's what you CHOSE to do. You can end this more quickly if you had taken one of the four options I mentioned. Those options are still available. So either quietly wait them out or speed it up and finish Gremlins off. But don't whine about how long it's taking when you're afraid to speed it
[/quote]

wait, Matthew was claiming before that most of the members did not leave because they disagreed and in fact, he further claimed that EB having talked to Ram or Gremlins gov, had apologized for his words on the OWF in regards to disagreeing with Gremlins actions.

now Matthew is stating that those members (all of them, not just the 4 or 5 he said before) left due to disagreeing with Gremlins actions? seems his story changes more times than someone changes their underwear.

if you don't want to read this so-called whining, you could leave the thread and never come back. though i admit, you posts are rather humorous to read.

[Penkala]

[quote name='Baldr' date='22 May 2010 - 10:08 PM' timestamp='1274580484' post='2308668']
Again with the lies.

IRON and DAWN have been offering white peace. I'm pretty sure that's still on the table at this point.

However, they have also said that if Gramlins keeps up their nonsense long enough, that they reserve the right to say "Fine, you did enough damage, and drug this out long enough, so we're going to expect something more".

The problem isn't that IRON hasn't offered white peace, is that Gramlins won't back off from their "Surrender and become our slaves" stupidity.
[/quote]

And once again, I have asked for official government clarification on this point. You may well be right. Is white peace on the table right now, IRON?

[quote]Actually if IRON has the sense god didn't bestow upon the Gramlins they'll keep the offer for white peace up no matter what, Its sorta the final nail in the PR coffin. Asking for reps gives Gre a wedge to use, IRON keeps the white peace up and this whole thing will remain nothing but a disaster for Gre.[/quote]

Exactly. Which is why it makes no sense for IRON to even discuss imposing reps. This is one of the few times where someone like IRON can have the PR advantage.

[quote]Where were you when SG's top tier went into PM during the Blue Balls War? oh wait, you were probably saying how good of an idea that was...[/quote]

Go back and read again before trying to debate this with me. Please read my responses pertaining to peace mode, specifically where I mention multiple times that this is a valid strategy and probably one of the better ones available to them.



[quote]if you don't want to read this so-called whining, you could leave the thread and never come back. [/quote]

Are you blind? You must be. Re-read, pal.

[quote]because you are a fool who has shown he knows little bout strategy and tactics. [/quote]

Please. I [i]invented[/i] the triple-breakoff flank maneuver. I'm probably the best strategist in the game.

[quote]wait, Matthew was claiming before that most of the members did not leave because they disagreed and in fact, he further claimed that EB having talked to Ram or Gremlins gov, had apologized for his words on the OWF in regards to disagreeing with Gremlins actions.

now Matthew is stating that those members (all of them, not just the 4 or 5 he said before) left due to disagreeing with Gremlins actions? seems his story changes more times than someone changes their underwear.[/quote]

What? I'm the one who said they left in disgust, not Matthew. I am not Matthew, I do not agree with Matthew, and I do not throw out the same !@#$%^&* PR lines Matthew throws out. I see no contradiction here until you quote Matthew as saying what I said.


[b]Clash[/b], where did I take bits out of context? If you're talking about where I took two lines out, that was to make my post not take up half a page while still referring you and others to what I was addressing. It was not an attempt to take lines out of context. If you're talking about another case please let me know.'

Edited May 23, 2010 by Penkala

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='22 May 2010 - 02:46 PM' timestamp='1274557545' post='2308285']
Dwindling numbers don't diminish the validity of our goal.
[/quote]
What goal means more to you than the survival of your own alliance?

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='22 May 2010 - 02:46 PM' timestamp='1274557545' post='2308285']
Should I still be worried about us not having "respectable numbers?"
[/quote]
I would expect you to if the Gramlins name means anything to you, yes.

[Derantol]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='22 May 2010 - 12:46 PM' timestamp='1274557545' post='2308285']
Dwindling numbers don't diminish the validity of our goal.
[/quote]

Dwindling numbers don't diminish the validity of your goal. They do, however, diminish your ability to achieve that goal.

There's a simple disagreement at a governmental level that is preventing this war from ending. You guys are confident that IRON has done something wrong and needs to pay for it, while IRON is confident that we've atoned by paying reps to CnG and allies in the ESA. Since we disagree, and you guys have more or less shut down diplomatic interactions that aren't IRON surrendering, the only policy option left is to be at war. So you'll have to either convince us that we are, in fact, still guilty (which the half a dozen threads and 200 pages of posts haven't done thus far), or beat us into submission. You're statistically incapable of doing it, so the war won't end on your terms.

You can call it a might makes right argument, but we aren't arguing that we've atoned because we're stronger than you. We're arguing that we've atoned because we've come to an agreement to end the war with those that we attacked in the first place. The current war, therefore, is viewed as not having a valid CB because we don't believe the basic premise of your reason to be at war.

[bigwoody]

Man, you guys are making it too easy for Penkala to bait you. Just let him spin his wheels, his points are long disproven. Haters gonna hate, with or without reason.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='23 May 2010 - 10:42 AM' timestamp='1274593338' post='2308863']
Man, you guys are making it too easy for Penkala to bait you. Just let him spin his wheels, his points are long disproven. Haters gonna hate, with or without reason.
[/quote]

A young sith apprentice giving into the hate, we're happy to assist in solidification of Penkala's Sith philosophy for our freinds and ally.

[Louisa]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='23 May 2010 - 01:58 AM' timestamp='1274576321' post='2308602']
A surrender precedes terms.
[/quote]

Well, actually a surrender precedes the terms [i]being implemented/fulfilled[/i]. How ever, there is such a thing as peace talks, where one or both sides put forward their terms and it is then up to the other to accept them and thus surrender, or to reject them and keep fighting the war.

I have no idea why you (plural) keep going on about this stupid idea of "surrender first, see what you get after."

[franciscus]

[quote name='Penkala' date='23 May 2010 - 05:20 AM' timestamp='1274588408' post='2308785']
And once again, I have asked for official government clarification on this point. You may well be right. Is white peace on the table right now, IRON?
[/quote]
As Council member of DAWN, I can tell you our official stance in this is that we will decide if we want to give white peace or not to Gremlins when they'll decide to admit defeat and come to negotiate surrender terms. DAWN's entire membership will then decide what we offer them. As far as IRON is concerned, all we know so far is white peace is still on the table. Of course, an IRON Council can clarify that further.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='22 May 2010 - 07:58 PM' timestamp='1274576321' post='2308602']
A surrender precedes terms.[/quote]

not in CN. any other universe is irrelevant to matters within CN. Gremlins should be smart enough to realize this.

[quote]And yes, we could offer any terms we want (that's the basis of unconditional surrender; they don't get to place conditions on the terms)[/quote]

that is an issue that ya'll don't recognize as a problem either.

[quote]But you have no idea what demilitarization orders will be nor is a surrendering party obligated to accept terms by surrendering.
[/quote]

and again, the fact that we have to demilitarize is harmful to us should we not accept the terms. so it is stupid of us to surrender at all. thus, we will keep fighting and you will keep losing members the longer you draw this war out.


[quote name='Penkala' date='22 May 2010 - 11:20 PM' timestamp='1274588408' post='2308785']
Go back and read again before trying to debate this with me. Please read my responses pertaining to peace mode, specifically where I mention multiple times that this is a valid strategy and probably one of the better ones available to them.[/quote]

really? then why are you in here talking stupid tactics as you have been the last couple of days? if you think PM is a valid tactic and that IRON are not cowards and all that, then what is up with your posts? contradict yourself much?

[quote]Are you blind? You must be. Re-read, pal.[/quote]

did you even understand what this statement said? what am i blind about? you call it whining and state it as fact, i don't see whining and i state is as fact. frankly, it is opinion on either side. so, you can stop attempting to call it fact cuz it never will be. it will always be just your opinion.


[quote]Please. I [i]invented[/i] the triple-breakoff flank maneuver. I'm probably the best strategist in the game.[/quote]

okay.....

[quote]What? I'm the one who said they left in disgust, not Matthew. I am not Matthew, I do not agree with Matthew, and I do not throw out the same !@#$%^&* PR lines Matthew throws out. I see no contradiction here until you quote Matthew as saying what I said.[/quote]

sorry, i was tired last night and messed that bit up.

as for the quietly wait them out, again, if you don't want to read about it, then you don't have to. no one forces you to open up those multiple threads and read them. you do that all by your lonesome. you can take your own advice and again stop posting in these threads by stop reading them. so if you don't like all this "whining" then stop reading the threads containing it. it is really not that hard of a concept.

Edited May 23, 2010 by Dochartaigh

[The Big Bad]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='22 May 2010 - 08:56 PM' timestamp='1274576179' post='2308596']
You're ignore the very basis of this entire war is that IRON [b]initiated[/b] military hostilities with an unwarranted attack.

It's a pretty sad world you seem to live in which is ruled by little pieces of paper rather than relationships.

"Any responsive action without a little piece of paper authorizing it is inherently aggressive"
That is absolutely pathetic.

When people defended KofN against Athens' aggression they were not, themselves, becoming aggressors.
I realize that life is less confusing for people when lines are drawn like that... in worlds where pieces of paper give you cause to act instead of any other imperatives.
I find it hard to believe that you live with such myopia.
[/quote]

Your entire argument falls apart because MK and company are at peace. If you truly entered the war to defend them, then mission accomplished. Gramlins however appears to have had no interest in getting MK peace as you stalled peace talks with your demands. You caused more damage to MK by your dragging out peace then would have occured without you in the war at all. I do not see how you were helping anybody. You wonder why people doubt why you even entered the war? Its because you have not acted in the best interest of those you claimed to be helping. And now because you delayed MKs peace causing them more damage, you were left alone on the battlefield to persue whatever crazy goal you have. So do not try and sell the self destruction of Gramlins as some martyr like attempt to defend friends, because you did more damange to them then you did the enemy. You have destroyed your allaince through poor leadership and not in defense of anybody or anything.

[Gamemaster1]

So I'm still waiting for Penkala to show me IRON whining like he said he would. If it is really so easy of a point to prove.