Jump to content

The New Grämlins


Iotupa

Recommended Posts

[quote]
You're (that's the collective "you") getting hung up on a word, not me. I'm insisting on a [b]process[/b] (which you think leads to slavery, but at least you're not arguing about a definition) and the [b]process[/b] is independent of any naming convention.
[/quote]

Now that an actual process has been outlined we can see that it bears some similarities to unconditional surrender, but it clearly is not. No one is disputing the process you are asking for, we are disputing the label you have given it because a declaration from IRON that they "surrender unconditionally" would be a separate process from the one you have stated. Saying one thing and doing another simply don't work when it comes to things like surrenders.

[quote]
You said yourself that they've chosen war. Don't complain when war takes time and has penalties. I wish IRON didn't choose war; I wish they'd take the very simple and responsible path to accepting consequences of their actions. But they haven't yet... so we're at war... and who is doing the bawwww'ing?
[/quote]

IRON has chosen war, lets examine that statment shall we?

Who declared the war? Gre, without benefit of treaty I might add.

Who declined to take part in the negotiations of the ESA that ended the entire of the rest of the conflict by those actually wronged by IRON? Gre.

Who insists on a bastardized version of a peace process while a quick end to the conflict exists and has existed for some time? Gre

Strike three, yer out!

[quote]
Certainly not GRE.
[/quote]

Certainly gre, you specifically infact, have done nothing but blather on about moral imperatives and unjustified self righteousness throwing a temper tantrum while insisting that the world must conform to your wishes just like a small child would. If that's not bawwing I don't know what it.

[quote]
There is nothing unreasonable about wanting them to accept the consequences of their actions.
[/quote]

Would you care to take some of your own medicine? Gre should accept the consequences of your actions as well, lets see what actions have brought you to this current position.

You declared war on someone without benefit of treaty, yet insist on labeling your victims as criminals, your own bloated egos made you decide it would be a good idea to stay at war when everybody else was ending the conflict, and now you have traded a war you had won for a war that has gutted your alliance to a small fraction of its size and power while utterly obliterating your public image.

When will Gre take responsibility for its actions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Banksy' date='14 June 2010 - 02:39 AM' timestamp='1276479564' post='2336602']
So the NPO wouldn't be willing to help a treaty partner out if the conflict had already started? Interesting.

I always thought wars were won by, you know, winning. IRON and Gremlins are at a standstill as IRON can't engage with Gremlin's upper tier. I'm sure IRON wouldn't say no to a bit of help.


Yes, the NPO are under surrender terms right now and cannot declare war, how silly of me :rolleyes:
[/quote]

And what does that have to do with this topic? Your obsession with us is getting kind of embarrasing, please stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='silentkiller' date='14 June 2010 - 01:21 AM' timestamp='1276500058' post='2337002']
And what does that have to do with this topic? Your obsession with us is getting kind of embarrasing, please stop.
[/quote]

It relates to his counter to Moo's post before, where he said that Pacifica should man up and sign with IRON (or something to that effect, I can't remember.) He then pointed out that Pacifica isn't under surrender terms anymore, which means that they may defend IRON if they wish.

To be honest, I kind of have to agree. It would be a ballsy and commendable move (although I don't think it'll actually happen.) Right now, it's pretty obvious that Pacifica is just waiting for the war to end before they sign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kalasin' date='14 June 2010 - 08:47 AM' timestamp='1276501629' post='2337022']
It relates to his counter to Moo's post before, where he said that Pacifica should man up and sign with IRON (or something to that effect, I can't remember.) He then pointed out that Pacifica isn't under surrender terms anymore, which means that they may defend IRON if they wish.

To be honest, I kind of have to agree. It would be a ballsy and commendable move (although I don't think it'll actually happen.) Right now, it's pretty obvious that Pacifica is just waiting for the war to end before they sign.
[/quote]

The only post of Moo I see is him hoping for a quick end to the conflict, I dont see how he was countering that.

and attacking Gremlins?

Ballsy? Perhaps. Stupid? Most definitely.

Edited by silentkiller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kalasin' date='14 June 2010 - 06:04 AM' timestamp='1276491864' post='2336902']
The only question is why Gramlins haven't backed down like they've never backed down before, and accepted white peace. I mean, Ramirus doesn't come across as the brightest chap, but surely he can realise this is a PR disaster......



Bahahaha.
[/quote]
200 Pages in and you still think Ram or his little cult care anything about PR lol

This only ends when either IRON work out how to impose an ending and/or Gre finaly get boared and collapse
the cool aid has well and truly been drunk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='silentkiller' date='14 June 2010 - 02:19 AM' timestamp='1276503534' post='2337034']
The only post of Moo I see is him hoping for a quick end to the conflict, I dont see how he was countering that.

and attacking Gremlins?

Ballsy? Perhaps. Stupid? Most definitely.
[/quote]

Actually, you’re correct, it wasn’t so much a rebuttal as a comment on the fact that Pacifica is not prepared to put its money where its mouth is. I mean, I don’t blame you, but it’s still a little annoying to know that down the line people will claim that the evil Complaints and Grievances Union prevented alliances from helping IRON, when Pacifica is perfectly capable of doing so but chooses not to.

[quote name='SynthFG' date='14 June 2010 - 02:35 AM' timestamp='1276504533' post='2337037']
200 Pages in and you still think Ram or his little cult care anything about PR lol
[/quote]

true lol, perhaps I give him too much credit :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone else thinks the war should be brought to a close, sure. But the vast majority of alliances which could help IRON out are prevented from doing so by the terms from the last war (nevermind for now that several C&G leaders have stated in this very thread that they would consider making an exception in this case.) Pacifica, on the other hand, doesn’t have this issue, and that’s why we’ve called you out.

I’d like to believe there are some alliances that would jump in to defend their friends, whether or not they were ready for war. Pacifica and IRON will very likely enter into an MDoAP or MADP after this war (or at least, that’s what everyone says) which places a further moral responsibility on Pacifica to become involved.

(for clarification, this was in response to WorldConqueror's now-deleted post, incase anyone was wondering why I had a random post here <_<)

Edited by Kalasin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]it’s still a little annoying to know that down the line people will claim that the evil Complaints and Grievances Union prevented alliances from helping IRON, when Pacifica is perfectly capable of doing so but chooses not to.[/quote]
While C&G (and MHA and Fark and Umbrella and whoever else has 'paperless treaties' with these clowns) is carefully not saying that it wouldn't protect Grämlins, then you [i]are[/i] preventing any (non-suicidal) alliances from helping. And let's not kid ourselves, if NPO came in to help IRON, C&G would be first on the bandwagon to roll them again. You're trying to goad NPO into a war and it's no prettier coming from you than it was from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='14 June 2010 - 05:54 AM' timestamp='1276516472' post='2337099']
While C&G (and MHA and Fark and Umbrella and whoever else has 'paperless treaties' with these clowns) is carefully not saying that it wouldn't protect Grämlins, then you [i]are[/i] preventing any (non-suicidal) alliances from helping. And let's not kid ourselves, if NPO came in to help IRON, C&G would be first on the bandwagon to roll them again. You're trying to goad NPO into a war and it's no prettier coming from you than it was from them.
[/quote]

I'm not, actually. Whether or not you'll believe that I don't know, but I find it unlikely they'd allow their foreign policy to be dictated by a couple of randoms like me and Banksy. :awesome:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kalasin' date='14 June 2010 - 06:46 PM' timestamp='1276505173' post='2337040']
Actually, you’re correct, it wasn’t so much a rebuttal as a comment on the fact that Pacifica is not prepared to put its money where its mouth is. I mean, I don’t blame you, but it’s still a little annoying to know that down the line people will claim that the evil Complaints and Grievances Union prevented alliances from helping IRON, when Pacifica is perfectly capable of doing so but chooses not to.true lol, perhaps I give him too much credit :P
[/quote]
IRON does not want or need Pacifica to fight our battle for us. This gramlins war is not preventing a treaty between us. We have good relations absolutely, I consider them friends, certainly, but there are other reasons for no treaty. Now and after this war. Will there be a treaty in the future? Perhaps, however there are still obstacles unrelated to this conflict for such.

[quote name='Kalasin' date='14 June 2010 - 07:44 PM' timestamp='1276508647' post='2337059']
Everyone else thinks the war should be brought to a close, sure. But the vast majority of alliances which could help IRON out are prevented from doing so by the terms from the last war (nevermind for now that several C&G leaders have stated in this very thread that they would consider making an exception in this case.) Pacifica, on the other hand, doesn’t have this issue, and that’s why we’ve called you out.I’d like to believe there are some alliances that would jump in to defend their friends, whether or not they were ready for war. Pacifica and IRON will very likely enter into an MDoAP or MADP after this war (or at least, that’s what everyone says) which places a further moral responsibility on Pacifica to become involved.(for clarification, this was in response to WorldConqueror's now-deleted post, incase anyone was wondering why I had a random post here <_<)
[/quote]
Many of our allies have attemtped to get involved in this war, have gone and asked the appropriate people, and whilst some alliances are willing to let them free, our allies have been consistantly blocked by others. Also see above.
EDIT: Even if they did there are still others holding a gun to the head of whoever might enter.

Edited by Shan Revan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='13 June 2010 - 10:40 PM' timestamp='1276483183' post='2336659']
in all honesty, very few would. especially considering that should NPO treaty IRON and then DoW Gremlins, i doubt MHA is gonna sit there and twiddle their thumbs. then there is CnG who would most likely jump at the chance of rolling NPO for being stupid enough to initiate that action. with that DoW, we would be hearing "NPO retroactively activated a treaty!!!!! they are ebil to the max!!!!!" type crap.

if you honestly think that NPO would be allowed to do that without receiving crap, then you are quite delusional.
[/quote]
To the person you were addressing, Doch: "If you honestly think that NPO would be stupid enough to do that, then you are quite delusional." <-- fixed

[quote name='SynthFG' date='14 June 2010 - 04:35 AM' timestamp='1276504533' post='2337037']
200 Pages in and you still think Ram or his little cult care anything about PR lol

This only ends when either IRON work out how to impose an ending and/or Gre finaly get boared and collapse
the cool aid has well and truly been drunk
[/quote]
More's the pity, I used to respect Gremlins a great deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kalasin' date='14 June 2010 - 05:44 AM' timestamp='1276508647' post='2337059']
Everyone else thinks the war should be brought to a close, sure. But the vast majority of alliances which could help IRON out are prevented from doing so by the terms from the last war (nevermind for now that several C&G leaders have stated in this very thread that they would consider making an exception in this case.) Pacifica, on the other hand, doesn’t have this issue, and that’s why we’ve called you out.

I’d like to believe there are some alliances that would jump in to defend their friends, whether or not they were ready for war. Pacifica and IRON will very likely enter into an MDoAP or MADP after this war (or at least, that’s what everyone says) which places a further moral responsibility on Pacifica to become involved.

(for clarification, this was in response to WorldConqueror's now-deleted post, incase anyone was wondering why I had a random post here <_<)
[/quote]
So let me get this straight, the peanut gallery, which usually has no clue what it is talking about says that IRON and NPO will "likely" enter into a high level treaty and based on that "likely" assumption we, the NPO have a moral obligation to get involved in something that we have not had anything to do with since it all started. This makes absolutely no sense.

This is not our war, we have not been asked to help out at this time. Why should we get involved uninvited? If IRON would like our help in this matter then they know where to find us. Until then there is no use in speculating about our involvement.

As for the this treaty everyone is talking about, if IRON and the NPO get together we will be sure to broadcast it for the Peanut Gallery to scream and bawww over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how the thread has turned to talk about Pacifica o.o

on topic though, repeating my earlier sentiment, I find it ridiculous that Gramlins still think that IRON would/could surrender at this stage. Hell, they should be thinking about surrendering themselves ._.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='R3nowned' date='14 June 2010 - 03:10 PM' timestamp='1276546236' post='2337470']
on topic though, repeating my earlier sentiment, I find it ridiculous that Gramlins still think that IRON would/could surrender at this stage. Hell, they should be thinking about surrendering themselves ._.
[/quote]


I don't. The fact is, this war is no longer about anything but ideologies. When IRON was in a position of weakness in this conflict, they did not give in. GRE is no in a position of weakness in this conflict, and they are not giving in. Whether you agree or disagree with the relative positions of IRON and GRE, they both feel they are in the right, and have proven so by not giving in when the other held the advantage. I can only conclude, unfortunately, that this is a fight to the death, with neither side willing to compromise their principles in order to end hostilities.

The proverbial "line in the sand" has been drawn. Unfortunately for GRE, it appears that stand is going to turn out poorly for them, but such is often the price of principled actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kalasin' date='14 June 2010 - 04:44 AM' timestamp='1276508647' post='2337059']
I’d like to believe there are some alliances that would jump in to defend their friends, whether or not they were ready for war. Pacifica and IRON will very likely enter into an MDoAP or MADP after this war (or at least, that’s what everyone says) which places a further moral responsibility on Pacifica to become involved.[/quote]

You make it sound like Pacifica, for sake of friendship and a nonexistent but possible future treaty, should declare on Gramlins whether IRON likes it or not.

IRON knows that they are currently winning, and that something like that would certainly bring in other parties, which could change it their position into a losing war. If *any* alliance entered on IRON's side, that's a risk. If NPO enters, it's a certainty.

Since IRON isn't asking anyone to enter, then screaming about how "NPO should defend their friends no matter what!" is pretty darn stupid.

[quote name='mike717' date='14 June 2010 - 04:23 PM' timestamp='1276550575' post='2337551']
I can only conclude, unfortunately, that this is a fight to the death, with neither side willing to compromise their principles in order to end hostilities. [/quote]

The only reason it is a fight to the death is because Gramlins insists on it. IRON is offering white peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kalasin' date='14 June 2010 - 04:46 AM' timestamp='1276505173' post='2337040']
Actually, you’re correct, it wasn’t so much a rebuttal as a comment on the fact that Pacifica is not prepared to put its money where its mouth is. I mean, I don’t blame you, but it’s still a little annoying to know that down the line people will claim that the evil Complaints and Grievances Union prevented alliances from helping IRON, when Pacifica is perfectly capable of doing so but chooses not to.

[/quote]

So then, may we have a written statement from C&G leadership that they will not intervene in any way should an alliance declare war on Gramlins? Or are you just taunting people behind feigned neutrality? One may murder someone to silence their voice; it doesn't mean one won't be thrown in jail for doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' date='14 June 2010 - 06:50 PM' timestamp='1276555835' post='2337647']
Why are you people arguing about an NPO intervention? NPO doesn't have the tech heavy nations to take down the 10 man GRE upper tier.
[/quote]

Because it wouldn't be an OWF political thread without some random politically inept individual blaming NPO for everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='14 June 2010 - 06:27 PM' timestamp='1276558044' post='2337683']
Because it wouldn't be an OWF political thread without some random politically inept individual blaming NPO for everything.
[/quote]

OH RIGHTTTT

TOTALLY FORGOT, MY BAD GUYS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Banksy' date='13 June 2010 - 09:39 PM' timestamp='1276479564' post='2336602']
So the NPO wouldn't be willing to help a treaty partner out if the conflict had already started? Interesting.

I always thought wars were won by, you know, winning. IRON and Gremlins are at a standstill as IRON can't engage with Gremlin's upper tier. I'm sure IRON wouldn't say no to a bit of help.


Yes, the NPO are under surrender terms right now and cannot declare war, how silly of me :rolleyes:
[/quote]
Your provocations have been noted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Baldr' date='31 March 2010 - 01:34 PM' timestamp='1270067663' post='2242345']
During the Karma war, the first offer to NPO from Karma was for unconditional surrender, with terms that would be given to NPO after all nations were in peace mode and all military improvements had been decommissioned. Naturally, NPO did not agree to comply to these terms. I can't imagine why anyone would, because all you do is to get rid of the ability to fight back at all, while the other side doesn't even agree to stop beating on you. Then, after you've got essentially nothing, they can make up any demands they want. Only a fool would agree to that.

Ironic, then, that Karma forces made the same offer to NPO during that war.

I'm sure you will recall that NPO was being told that reps were going up for every day that any NPO nations were at peace, and that those reps were in addition to the reps and terms Karma had already decided on - which would only be told to NPO after NPO surrendered.
[/quote]


I found this back on Page 5. So the Karma was was the first time this asinine idea of unconditional surrender was used.

The idea of telling an alliance they must surrender and disarm before they can be told what the terms of their surrender will be was an idea started by the forces of Karma.

For the love of admin who was the r-tard to come up with this. If any of you have logs showing the first time this idea was let out of Pandora’s box I’m sure we would all love to see it.

Knowing this idea had been tried before makes perfect sense why Ram tried it now. I’m sure he felt he could accomplish with IRON what the rest of Karma could not with NPO, he was dead wrong.

It’s time to man up Ram and say ok I didn’t have what it took to make IRON bend to my will any more than the forces of Karma could make NPO bend to theirs. No harm no foul. You gave it your best shot and it didn’t work out. Time to take what is left of your alliance and leave the field of battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Presumably if the idea of "unconditional surrender" was raised during Karma, it was by the same person who raised it this time around.

In any case it certainly was not the first time the idea has ever been thrown around though. I believe GATO was told they could surrender unconditionally if they didn't like being ZIed for 3 months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 June 2010 - 07:22 PM' timestamp='1276474961' post='2336517']
Tough talk. Particularly, let me know when there is a single nation in IRON within my range.
[/quote]

http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=115876

Would this IRON nation be within your range MPK? :popcorn:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...