The New Grämlins

[SynthFG]

[quote name='mrcalkin' date='29 June 2010 - 09:55 AM' timestamp='1277801688' post='2353758']
Exclusive video from inside The Grämlins underground bunker:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1OoqHC6M-Y
[/quote]
Looks pretty authentic to me,
they could have at leat decorated since I left

[amad123]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 June 2010 - 02:04 AM' timestamp='1277791440' post='2353662']
We have provided you an honorable peace that both you and we could say was not motivated by tech bribes or a plea-bargain to be released but, for probably the first time in history, one alliance turning themselves in honorably to acknowledge their actions. [/quote]

No you have not provided an honourable peace, otherwise we would have accepted it. What you have provided is a humiliating pre-condition to be met, before you will present your peace terms with a take it or leave it it's not up for discussion attitude.



[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 June 2010 - 02:04 AM' timestamp='1277791440' post='2353662']
That being said, even though many people disagree with our current actions that will not make out initial entry aggressive or bandwagoning. [/quote]

I disagree, it was obvious bandwagoning, (not that I think there is anything wrong with it.) Not only that, but now Gramlins wants to bandwagon on the Easter Sunday Accords. They think everyone should have no problem letting them bandwagon onto a treaty if they amend it to suit Gramlins. Really, is this what you guys do, try and think of things to do in CN that have never been done before to confirm that you still have some relevance on Planet Bob?



[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 June 2010 - 02:04 AM' timestamp='1277791440' post='2353662']
To this day I do not understand why you think we would demand reps or try to humiliate you. That being said, to accept IRON's offer of white peace would be destructive. Your position is one of unwarranted aggression completely without contrition. [/quote]

We don't know what you will demand, you won't tell. Therefore, considering what you have so far alluded to, "Unconditional Surrender", which by itself is extremely humiliating there is no telling how humiliating and ridiculous your peace terms would have been.



[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 June 2010 - 02:04 AM' timestamp='1277791440' post='2353662']
I will not accept a "white peace" as if you were on equal standings. [/quote]

I can understand that, and I agree you are not equal, however I have been unable to convince the governments of IRON/DAWN to withdraw the offer. Perhaps that is because when asked what reps I would ask for I replied "There is nothing Gramlins have that I want." So white peace is still on the table. I trust you will hold out for several more months.



[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 June 2010 - 02:04 AM' timestamp='1277791440' post='2353662']
I am bewildered, not angered, by the fact that you have refused our simple path to peace and refused to offer even a bit of contrition.
[/quote]

All of CN is bewildered why you didn't outline your plan in full for peace. You probably could have had it back when ESA was signed, maybe not, depends on how ridiculous your demands were.

From day 1 Gramlins have misjudged the reaction IRON/DAWN and indeed the rest of the alliances in CN would have with their actions. I could say you are completely out of touch with reality, but in truth your grasp of reality is okay, you are however completely out of touch with fantasy, (Cybernations).

See you on the battlefield.


.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 June 2010 - 01:04 AM' timestamp='1277791440' post='2353662']
I will not accept a "white peace" as if you were on equal standings.
[/quote]

true, IRON/DAWN are far superior to anything Gremlins has become. they are lowering themselves by offering your white peace instead of making your pay for your "crimes".

[Some-Guy]

Dear IRON,

Please feel bad, and then write about how you feel so totally bad about your actions on to some e-paper.

Oh, and you had better mean it too, or they'll be trouble.

OK?

Love,
Ram.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='mrcalkin' date='29 June 2010 - 04:55 AM' timestamp='1277801688' post='2353758']
Exclusive video from inside The Grämlins underground bunker:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1OoqHC6M-Y
[/quote]

This got my morning off to a good start. TYVM.

[Kalasin]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='29 June 2010 - 07:34 AM' timestamp='1277818472' post='2353892']
This got my morning off to a good start. TYVM.
[/quote]

All inactive nations, please leave *now*.

That was great.

[King Chill I]

[quote name='mrcalkin' date='29 June 2010 - 04:55 AM' timestamp='1277801688' post='2353758']
Exclusive video from inside The Grämlins underground bunker:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1OoqHC6M-Y
[/quote]

Hahaha, humor and creativity at their best.


[quote name='Kalasin' date='29 June 2010 - 09:50 AM' timestamp='1277819420' post='2353902']
All inactive nations, please leave *now*.

That was great.
[/quote]

Thats about the right number.

Edited June 29, 2010 by King Chill I

[Louisa]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 June 2010 - 07:04 AM' timestamp='1277791440' post='2353662']
. . . [IRON] turning themselves in . . .

. . .

I will not accept a "white peace" as if you were on equal standings.
[/quote]

You are not the police (InterBob? Bobland Yard?), so it is simply not possible for any one to "turn themself in" to you. And you are not superior in any way to IRON/DAWN, so take off the hair shirt, climb down from your pillar, have some water to calm your feverish brains, and come to your senses. Or continue the self flagellation, I am pretty far beyond really caring for you at this point.

But have a nice summer

[Zoomzoomzoom]

Great video. lol

[shilo]

That video was definitely good, very nice summary of the situation from their PoV.

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Tromp' date='28 June 2010 - 07:25 PM' timestamp='1277767494' post='2353328']
It is funny to see this statement in light of the whole debate in this thread, since it was exactly what Gremlins was opposing: the fact that the ESA were nothing more then a bribe, certainly so in the eyes of IRON&co.
[/quote]

[quote]If you want to renegotiate the ESA, fine, let’s renegotiate. But if my tech shipments were but a “bribe” (Ram’s words), TORN feels extorted. I was under the impression that the deal cut was X amount of tech in exchange for reinstatement to the community of alliances as a full member.[/quote]

My previous quot for background knowledge Tromp.

Just to be clear I think “bribe” is the wrong term to use and does not reflect the reality of alliance interaction. Alliances can be a member of the community of nations, ie at peace and having normal relations with other alliances, or you can be outside of that community, ie at war or under terms. That’s all there is, normal or restricted. When an alliance is under terms they are being forced off the world stage for a given period. When an alliance pays reps, it guarantees that it will be at a disadvantage vis a vis the victorious party and makes this victor [i]feel[/i] more secure in its defense, allowing them to be confident that both time and tech justify brining the alliance in question back into the world community as a member in good standing. So is it a bribe? No, it is an assurance mechanism for one party, and it is a survival technique for the other.

Just as is unconditional surrender. There is nothing implicitly different about the reforming capacity of forcing an alliance to lie prostrate to one’s will, in this case Gre’s will. The uncertainly factor up’s the stakes, but it does not do anything to guarantee an alliance will change its behavior, just as an apology does not guarantee this. The only way surrender terms can [i]themself[/i] (notice this is different from alliance deciding on its own) ensure changed behavior is by forced disbandment, regime change, or charter changes, all of which are considered unacceptably harsh because they deprive sovereignty.

If anything is akin to a bribe, it is unconditional surrender. After all Ram himself has explained this term as being a battle tactic, with the trade being explicitly “disarmament for a state of peace”. After this original trade is made then the future assurance mechanism would be whatever terms are requested after IRON and DAWN lie prostrate at Gre’s mercy. It is certainly likely that Gre’s post-surrender “peace terms” would be less demanding than the assurances requested by the other victors, but whatever they are they will be assurances. The only difference being that Gre will offer some vague policy position absolving IRON and DAWN of their “sinful” history in exchange for these “peace terms”.

And this is the point I take issue with. You cannot wipe away an alliance’s history. Future actions are shaped by past experiences, and while alliances can “change” their past decisions and experiences are vital parts of their experience. Gre wants to trade an instance of total submission in exchange for absolution. The problem being Gre is in no position to grant said absolution, they are not CN Gods (we all know his most holy Tom Delay is), priests, religious figures, nor are they the arbiters of justice. The demand of unconditional surrender is derived from an arrogant sense of Gramlins exceptionalism and holier than thou delusions.

Which leads me to my final point. No, I do not feel remorseful about TORN’s decision to carry out a preemptive strike. I believe it to be a valid military tactic, and as such we aggressed in solidarity with one of our greatest allies in an attempt to win a larger war. Perhaps Gramlins is confusing our preemptive strike with theirs during the so called NoCB War, I can understand how that might be confusing for them. I said from the beginning that I disagreed with TOP’s DoW and that the reasons expounded upon in that document were not the reasons we decided to enter the fight. Gre has stated that they want IRON to feel contrite for their actions, which is why they are demanding such a humiliating gesture. They want to foist war guilt onto IRON, and thus they are attempting to dictate the interpretation of IRON and DAWN’s history while playing at priest and forgiving them for their “sorted past”. Ultimately the interpretation of history should be up to individuals, I can tell you there are some in my own alliance who doubt the decision to preempt, and ultimately that is their choice as it is everyone elses'.

What I find highly offensive is the notion that IRON and DAWN are being asked to submit themselves to the “kindness” of Gre, an alliance which we are constantly reminded has a “codex” which requires it to be “just” and fair in its dealings. The implication here being that IRON and DAWN are unjust, “evil” alliances, whose history is so sordid that of course Gre would not accept unconditional surrender from IRON. The pretentious righteous indignation is sickening, and the double standard is offensive. You have neither the power, moral authority, or judgment to demand unconditional surrender. I would advise you to take the generous offer of “white peace”, but it appears that you too only respond to force.

[shilo]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='29 June 2010 - 05:10 PM' timestamp='1277824201' post='2353955']
My previous quot for background knowledge Tromp.

Just to be clear I think “bribe” is the wrong term to use and does not reflect the reality of alliance interaction. Alliances can be a member of the community of nations, ie at peace and having normal relations with other alliances, or you can be outside of that community, ie at war or under terms. That’s all there is, normal or restricted. When an alliance is under terms they are being forced off the world stage for a given period. When an alliance pays reps, it guarantees that it will be at a disadvantage vis a vis the victorious party and makes this victor [i]feel[/i] more secure in its defense, allowing them to be confident that both time and tech justify brining the alliance in question back into the world community as a member in good standing. So is it a bribe? No, it is an assurance mechanism for one party, and it is a survival technique for the other.

Just as is unconditional surrender. There is nothing implicitly different about the reforming capacity of forcing an alliance to lie prostrate to one’s will, in this case Gre’s will. The uncertainly factor up’s the stakes, but it does not do anything to guarantee an alliance will change its behavior, just as an apology does not guarantee this. The only way surrender terms can [i]themself[/i] (notice this is different from alliance deciding on its own) ensure changed behavior is by forced disbandment, regime change, or charter changes, all of which are considered unacceptably harsh because they deprive sovereignty.

If anything is akin to a bribe, it is unconditional surrender. After all Ram himself has explained this term as being a battle tactic, with the trade being explicitly “disarmament for a state of peace”. After this original trade is made then the future assurance mechanism would be whatever terms are requested after IRON and DAWN lie prostrate at Gre’s mercy. It is certainly likely that Gre’s post-surrender “peace terms” would be less demanding than the assurances requested by the other victors, but whatever they are they will be assurances. The only difference being that Gre will offer some vague policy position absolving IRON and DAWN of their “sinful” history in exchange for these “peace terms”.

And this is the point I take issue with. You cannot wipe away an alliance’s history. Future actions are shaped by past experiences, and while alliances can “change” their past decisions and experiences are vital parts of their experience. Gre wants to trade an instance of total submission in exchange for absolution. The problem being Gre is in no position to grant said absolution, they are not CN Gods (we all know his most holy Tom Delay is), priests, religious figures, nor are they the arbiters of justice. The demand of unconditional surrender is derived from an arrogant sense of Gramlins exceptionalism and holier than thou delusions.

Which leads me to my final point. No, I do not feel remorseful about TORN’s decision to carry out a preemptive strike. I believe it to be a valid military tactic, and as such we aggressed in solidarity with one of our greatest allies in an attempt to win a larger war. Perhaps Gramlins is confusing our preemptive strike with theirs during the so called NoCB War, I can understand how that might be confusing for them. I said from the beginning that I disagreed with TOP’s DoW and that the reasons expounded upon in that document were not the reasons we decided to enter the fight. Gre has stated that they want IRON to feel contrite for their actions, which is why they are demanding such a humiliating gesture. They want to foist war guilt onto IRON, and thus they are attempting to dictate the interpretation of IRON and DAWN’s history while playing at priest and forgiving them for their “sorted past”. Ultimately the interpretation of history should be up to individuals, I can tell you there are some in my own alliance who doubt the decision to preempt, and ultimately that is their choice as it is everyone elses'.

What I find highly offensive is the notion that IRON and DAWN are being asked to submit themselves to the “kindness” of Gre, an alliance which we are constantly reminded has a “codex” which requires it to be “just” and fair in its dealings. The implication here being that IRON and DAWN are unjust, “evil” alliances, whose history is so sordid that of course Gre would not accept unconditional surrender from IRON. The pretentious righteous indignation is sickening, and the double standard is offensive. You have neither the power, moral authority, or judgment to demand unconditional surrender. I would advise you to take the generous offer of “white peace”, but it appears that you too only respond to force.
[/quote]
Truly well spoken my friend.

The summary of gRAMlin's delusions, the summary of why we still fight no matter the cost.

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='Louisa' date='29 June 2010 - 07:01 AM' timestamp='1277820057' post='2353908']
You are not the police (InterBob? Bobland Yard?), so it is simply not possible for any one to "turn themself in" to you. And you are not superior in any way to IRON/DAWN, so take off the hair shirt, climb down from your pillar, have some water to calm your feverish brains, and come to your senses. Or continue the self flagellation, I am pretty far beyond really caring for you at this point.

But have a nice summer
[/quote]


I liked the bit about the hairshirt. Nice touch.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='29 June 2010 - 08:10 AM' timestamp='1277824201' post='2353955']
Which leads me to my final point. No, I do not feel remorseful about TORN’s decision to carry out a preemptive strike. I believe it to be a valid military tactic, and as such we aggressed in solidarity with one of our greatest allies in an attempt to win a larger war. Perhaps Gramlins is confusing our preemptive strike with theirs during the so called NoCB War, I can understand how that might be confusing for them. I said from the beginning that I disagreed with TOP’s DoW and that the reasons expounded upon in that document were not the reasons we decided to enter the fight. Gre has stated that they want IRON to feel contrite for their actions, which is why they are demanding such a humiliating gesture. They want to foist war guilt onto IRON, and thus they are attempting to dictate the interpretation of IRON and DAWN’s history while playing at priest and forgiving them for their “sorted past”. Ultimately the interpretation of history should be up to individuals, I can tell you there are some in my own alliance who doubt the decision to preempt, and ultimately that is their choice as it is everyone elses'. [/quote]

You have an invalid assumption that we demand you feel remorse, sorrow, contrition etc.
This issue was addressed pages ago.

Demanding you "feel sorry" is ridiculous and could never carry any shred of validity.


Sure, I would love IRON to *be* contrite; but I think it has been demonstrated they are not sorry for their actions. It would be stupid to ask them to be such.

On the other hand, it is quite possible to be culpable (and acknowledge such) without being contrite or feeling sorry.
This is the nature of our demand.


As for the NoCB war... that has been discussed as nauseum in this thread as well. Usually it comes up with somebody (like you!) trying to undermine our position by subtly reminding us all that GRE declared such a war on Polar.

Then I respond with the same true statement akin to:
"Yes, that war was wrong. It was planned, declared and carried out under the direction and leadership of the 'old' Gremlins whose name you all claim we have defiled. I am sorry to have participated and am glad to be unlike those leaders who declared such a war.

Then nobody mentions it for a long time because they think: "Oh wait, he's right! I'll wait 10 pages until it's forgotten and then bring it up again."


As for IRON's past... it's irrelevant to the current demand. They committed a particular act which lead to this war. This war carries specific demands for restitution. Should IRON serve that restitution, GRE absolves them of any duty to us.

GRE can't "forgive" IRON on anybody's behalf but GRE's. In case you haven't noticed, we're the only ones at war with IRON presently.

[quote name='Ojiras Ajeridas' date='29 June 2010 - 12:30 AM' timestamp='1277796599' post='2353724']
Matthew, you have to admit the failure of Grämlins in this issue.[/quote]

I will admit some personal failings
I failed to foresee how many people would be swayed by the lies and misinformation opposing the realities of what we're demanding.
I failed to foresee that people would actually ignore my repeated explanations of the process we are demanding and pretend that their process was somehow more valid... and that so many people would actually be taken by it!
I failed to foresee how many GRE members would run away because they feared for their infra or got hurt by the OWF opinion (not all of them meet these criteria, but many do!)


[quote] If they contributed in a constructive way to ESA, they would have had the admission of defeat, the admission of being in the wrong by IRON. They would have had reps by IRON. [/quote]

All things demanded with "a gun to their head" and therefore in no way hardened against doubt.

[quote]Gre preferred to stay out of ESA, and this stance lead to the destruction of your alliance. [/quote]
I wish so many people weren't so fearful of change.

[quote]Unfortunately Grämlins isn't in a position to demand anything. With 18 people left, 7 people over 70,000 NS, 4 people at ZI, another 3 people below 1,000 infra, actually you aren't a threat to anyone any more. [/quote]
Interesting how many IRON nations are still in PM?

[quote]So, the best thing you can do right now is to accept IRON's white peace offer[/quote]
I'd rather go to ZI.

[quote]get rid of Ram and rebuild your once fine alliance to reach old glories. I am confident that you still have people able to do that. If you continue this way, it will last some more months in which you will be seen just as a pain in the $@! by most alliances, but at the end it will mean the complete disappearing of your alliance. Honestly, it will be a sad day when Planet Bob won't have any Grämlins any more.
[/quote]


If this alliance wanted to be free from Ram's policy influence we didn't have to keep voting him into power.
I am content with many of the changes he's tried to make, glad at the hard work he's put in and entertained by all the "opposition" but the lack of others willing to do any of the work.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Eden Taylor]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 June 2010 - 02:30 PM' timestamp='1277839784' post='2354236']
I'd rather go to ZI.
[/quote]

Dude, this is going to take you to ZI, ZT, and eventually Z$. Quit acting like if Gramlins doesn't give in that they'll be put down anywhere short of complete bill lock.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 June 2010 - 01:04 AM' timestamp='1277791440' post='2353662']
At no point was GRE militarily capable of forcing IRON to do anything. You know this.
That is, in fact, partly *the point* of our demand.[/quote]

You thought differently earlier in the thread.

For example...
[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 07:07 PM' timestamp='1270080406' post='2242624']
This negotiating is between a victor and a defeated party. Surrender if the first step in recognizing that fact.[/quote]

And another...
[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 April 2010 - 04:22 PM' timestamp='1271107358' post='2257735']
I'm not afraid of sunk costs, I just haven't folded after the turn. Seems to me like IRON/DAWN is on the draw for the river.Naturally, they will think otherwise.[/quote]

And another...
[quote name='Ertyy' date='01 May 2010 - 11:42 AM' timestamp='1272732142' post='2282739']
I will repeat this again: based on the reports I have seen, IRON's upper tier has nothing. If they were to come out swinging right now, I doubt they could give a good showing for longer than a week at the most (and that is assuming all those people with a month or two of unpaid bills can actually pay that off). Meanwhile, we got a load of money left and can just buy right back up after IRON exhausts itself. You need actual nations that can fight to bring someone down. It's not going to happen just because our members are all sad because OWF doesn't like them.But, ya, keep touting alliance NS numbers as if those mean anything in this case. I'm sure you will win a lot of support with that line.Edit: Speaking clearly.
[/quote]

And another...
[quote name='Ertyy' date='01 May 2010 - 03:17 PM' timestamp='1272745046' post='2282922']
Well, I failed to make the distinction the segment of IRON that is currently in our range and the low-level nations that are pretty much not at war with anyone. When I say they have no money I refer to the people we would actually have a chance of fighting, the upper tier. So ya, a large portion of IRON may be growing unmolested, but I would still take our situation over their's.

Edit: idk. Maybe this whole idea that IRON is "winning" comes about because they and the rest of bob don't have any problem with all their viable nations being in tech-selling range.
[/quote]

And another...
[quote name='Ertyy' date='01 May 2010 - 02:52 PM' timestamp='1272743533' post='2282913']
It's real simple. Gre is currently winning because we have the money to continue the fight and IRON doesn't. That their overall infra/land/tech/mil is increasing is irrelevant because they don't have the money to pay for stuff. There is no arbitrary selection of numbers, or anything of that kind.
[/quote]

There are lots of quotes from you and Ertyy, earlier in the war, where you claim you can win. Now you are changing your story, pretending you never said those things. None from Ramirusm who hasn't had the guts to post at all.

[quote]I will not accept a "white peace" as if you were on equal standings.[/quote]

At this point, I don't want you to. Luckily for you, it's not my decision.

[quote]Is has never been our intention to crush, destroy or mangle you.[/quote]

Oh, really?

[quote name='Ertyy' date='02 May 2010 - 10:57 AM' timestamp='1272815821' post='2283810']
Years of enabling all manner of shens. Rejecting the fresh start they were given in karma. We do not negotiate with criminal alliances. That mistake was made last year and here we are fighting the same war again this year. We don't plan on having to fight it again next year.
[/quote]

Now, it's "We have never intended to crush, destroy, or mangle you". A couple of months ago, when you were claiming that winning was inevitable, the story was "We don't plan on having to fight you again in a year" with the implication that you planned to destroy them, either in war or via terms.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 June 2010 - 02:30 PM' timestamp='1277839784' post='2354236']
Interesting how many IRON nations are still in PM?[/quote]

I'm not sure of your point, but I'll answer the question.

4 of Gramlins 19 nations are in Peace Mode. 21%.

17 of IRON's 317 nations are in Peace Mode. 5.3%

0 of DAWN's 13 nations are in Peace Mode. 0%.

Is your point "We're still hurting IRON by keeping some of their larger nations in Peace Mode"? If so, I agree. That is hurting IRON. However, not nearly as bad as you're hurting, and everyone knows it.

[quote]I'd rather go to ZI.[/quote]

Finally, something we can agree on. I'd rather you go to ZI, too.

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 June 2010 - 12:30 PM' timestamp='1277839784' post='2354236']
I failed to foresee how many people would be swayed by the lies and misinformation opposing the realities of what we're demanding.
I failed to foresee that people would actually ignore my repeated explanations of the process we are demanding and pretend that their process was somehow more valid... and that so many people would actually be taken by it!
I failed to foresee how many GRE members would run away because they feared for their infra or got hurt by the OWF opinion (not all of them meet these criteria, but many do!)
[/quote]


The thing you failed to see was that your explanations made no sense, that you failed to understand that following Ram was a disaster in slow motion, that you were destroying a once proud and respected alliance and that many of your fellow Gramlins did see what you did not.

[ccabal86]

[quote name='mrcalkin' date='29 June 2010 - 10:55 AM' timestamp='1277801688' post='2353758']
Exclusive video from inside The Grämlins underground bunker:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1OoqHC6M-Y
[/quote]

LOL, sums up the logs' content pretty well.

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 June 2010 - 03:30 PM' timestamp='1277839784' post='2354236']
You have an invalid assumption that we demand you feel remorse, sorrow, contrition etc.
This issue was addressed pages ago.

Demanding you "feel sorry" is ridiculous and could never carry any shred of validity.


Sure, I would love IRON to *be* contrite; but I think it has been demonstrated they are not sorry for their actions. It would be stupid to ask them to be such.

On the other hand, it is quite possible to be culpable (and acknowledge such) without being contrite or feeling sorry.
This is the nature of our demand.


As for the NoCB war... that has been discussed as nauseum in this thread as well. Usually it comes up with somebody (like you!) trying to undermine our position by subtly reminding us all that GRE declared such a war on Polar.

Then I respond with the same true statement akin to:
"Yes, that war was wrong. It was planned, declared and carried out under the direction and leadership of the 'old' Gremlins whose name you all claim we have defiled. I am sorry to have participated and am glad to be unlike those leaders who declared such a war.

Then nobody mentions it for a long time because they think: "Oh wait, he's right! I'll wait 10 pages until it's forgotten and then bring it up again."


As for IRON's past... it's irrelevant to the current demand. They committed a particular act which lead to this war. This war carries specific demands for restitution. Should IRON serve that restitution, GRE absolves them of any duty to us.

GRE can't "forgive" IRON on anybody's behalf but GRE's. In case you haven't noticed, we're the only ones at war with IRON presently.
[/quote]

No sir, I think you misunderstand me though you are right, my use of "contrite" was incorrect. I was attempting to address Tromp's post which stated,

[quote]True, and I don't disagree.

The point was that apparently they don't think they did anything wrong still, even though some people in this thread have stated the opposite: that reps = admission of fault.[/quote]

but I attributed his sentiment to you, for which I apologize.

However, my previous post focused significantly more on "interpretation of history" which is best demonstrated by "They want to foist war guilt onto IRON." I believe you will agree with me that is precisely what you would like to do, add a sort of "war guilt clause." It is for this reason I brought up your role in the NoCB war. I do get the sense that you believe our role in this war and your role in NoCB to be the same. [b]They are not[/b]. In the latter you and your allies claimed the war to be a separate one, we, on the other hand have insisted that the TOP-CnG war and the 2nd Unjust War are but two fronts in the same war.

An acknowledgement of culpability implies responsibility for a certain situation. If you would like to see where IRON and DAWN acknowledged their responsibility for actions in this war, you need look any further than their [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79442"]Declaration of War[/url]. It is in this document they acknowledged their attack on the Complaints and Grievances Union. That action involved you in the war. However, since I assume this DoW does not meet your criteria of culpability it seems to me that your require an acknowledgement of their culpability for the entire war. You would like them somehow to acknowledge that they are the alliance whose [i]original[/i] initiation of force caused all other reactions.

It is here where we have the disagreement Matthew, and why I find your platitudes about "taking responsibility" to be a subtle disguise for, "accept our interpretation of events." You see we have a substantial disagreement over [i]who[/i] was the initiator of force, and the primary alliance culpable for all subsequent Declarations of War. From the position I am sitting (and we have discussed this topic ad nauseum during the war, but I will oblige if you would like to start it up again) it was not TIDTT's [u]preemptive[/u] attack which began the chain of declarations, it was the New Polar Order's decision to begin a war (or \m/ depending on your interpretation) without which the NSO (IRON's direct treaty partner) would never have been involved and thus IRON would never have been involved.

So while you couch your unreasonable demands in terms of "taking responsibility" or use improper analogies to "cops and robbers" your true motive is much more insidious, that being to "to dictate the interpretation of IRON and DAWN’s history while playing at priest and forgiving them for their 'sorted past'." Given that your demands do not reflect an objective "justice" or "truth", we get back to the base game of trading one thing for another. CnG wanted tech in exchange for peace, you want IRON and DAWN to sacrifice their beliefs and help buttress your incorrect self image as a moral authority. It is just a different form of "bribe" Matthew.

Additionally, unconditional surrender does nothing to compel an alliance to "take responsibility". Unconditional surrender, according to you, is simply an admission that the surrendering party is totally and utterly defeated. That resistance to the will of the other party is futile enough that the surrendering party requests no conditions prior to the surrender negotiations. You are requesting IRON and DAWN prostrate themselves unto your mercy. You want them to humble themselves in front of you, to ask for your forgiveness, implying that it is your place to forgive. Again, "Gre is in no position to grant said absolution, they are not CN Gods (we all know his most holy Tom Delay is), priests, religious figures, nor are they the arbiters of justice."

Edit: added a space before "declaration of war"

Edited June 30, 2010 by Lord Curzon

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 June 2010 - 04:46 PM' timestamp='1277790354' post='2353652']
To be quite honest, your post was inspirational to me personally because it was possibly the only suggested alternative which could accomplish a remotely similar goal to our initial plan. That's why I brought it up quite some time ago.[/quote]
Why was it delayed until now? All you've managed to achieve by your obstinacy is the ruination of your alliance, capped by an embarrassingly tardy reversal of policy.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 June 2010 - 04:46 PM' timestamp='1277790354' post='2353652']What responsibility do you want me to take?[/quote]
I want you to take responsibility for your actions. You have a share in ruining what was (or what appeared to be, from my perspective) a tightly-knit community of people I used to call friends.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz

[Tromp]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='29 June 2010 - 05:10 PM' timestamp='1277824201' post='2353955'][...snip...]
[/quote]
Thanks for the reply.

Check your mail.

[The Warrior]

In that video did anyone else find it hilarious that Ram (aka Hitler) claimed that he had 20 years experience in US Military Intelligence? I laughed a lot at that.


[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 June 2010 - 08:30 PM' timestamp='1277839784' post='2354236']
I'd rather go to ZI.
[/quote]

You asked for it.

[Timtacious]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 June 2010 - 01:04 AM' timestamp='1277791440' post='2353662']
To this day I do not understand why you think we would demand reps or try to humiliate you.

I will not accept a "white peace" as if you were on equal standings.
[/quote]

The answer to the first sentence is right there in the 2nd. Why do we think you'd demand reps? Because white peace is "unacceptable"

You HAVE to be just feigning idiocy, right?

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 June 2010 - 02:04 AM' timestamp='1277791440' post='2353662']
I will not accept a "white peace" as if you were on equal standings.
[/quote]

You are right, you are not on equal terms, IRON is being generous in offering white peace.

You are just lucky they recognize they can do more damage to your image with a white peace offer than getting reps out of you.

[quote name='Stetson' date='29 June 2010 - 03:09 AM' timestamp='1277795356' post='2353713']
As much as I agree with TypoNinja's analysis of the practical result of reps, I personally think they are much more than a bribe, they are the "fine" or penalty imposed by the victorious party. Now I wasn't in on the discussions, but if the losers showed up and said, "I'm offering you X amounts of tech/cash for peace", then yes, I guess my understanding of the terms is incorrect, but if the question was "what are your demands", then my point stands.
[/quote]

I never meant to imply that there were not other uses for reparations, just that that was the primary goal, punitive levies as both and example and a deterrent both represent secondary concerns, I do not believe reparations contribute to the cost of damages since actual damage in any serious conflict will quickly rise to astronomical numbers.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='29 June 2010 - 03:30 PM' timestamp='1277839784' post='2354236']
You have an invalid assumption that we demand you feel remorse, sorrow, contrition etc.
This issue was addressed pages ago.

Demanding you "feel sorry" is ridiculous and could never carry any shred of validity.


Sure, I would love IRON to *be* contrite; but I think it has been demonstrated they are not sorry for their actions. It would be stupid to ask them to be such.

On the other hand, it is quite possible to be culpable (and acknowledge such) without being contrite or feeling sorry.
This is the nature of our demand.
[/quote]

Flat out lies! Or do I need to bust out the quotes of your leader specifically mentioning he wanted an apology and admission of guilt?

[quote]As for IRON's past... it's irrelevant to the current demand. They committed a particular act which lead to this war. This war carries specific demands for restitution. Should IRON serve that restitution, GRE absolves them of any duty to us.

GRE can't "forgive" IRON on anybody's behalf but GRE's. In case you haven't noticed, we're the only ones at war with IRON presently.
[/quote]

IRON didn't wrong you, you attacked them. What standing do you claim to have the authority to judge them?


[quote]I will admit some personal failings
I failed to foresee how many people would be swayed by the lies and misinformation opposing the realities of what we're demanding.
I failed to foresee that people would actually ignore my repeated explanations of the process we are demanding and pretend that their process was somehow more valid... and that so many people would actually be taken by it!
I failed to foresee how many GRE members would run away because they feared for their infra or got hurt by the OWF opinion (not all of them meet these criteria, but many do!)
[/quote]

More like you failed to foresee a world that wasn't shy about calling BS when we see it. You got too used to world rule that quashed public dissent and made the same mistake that got NPO into Karma. Being able to perform an action does not equate with acceptance of that issue.

The only lies spewed have been from you, the member who you have lost are the ones who refused to swallow the party line, when more than 3/4 of your alliance leaves its not because they lack something its because you lack something.

[quote]Interesting how many IRON nations are still in PM?[/quote]

In the same way its interesting how Gre who is demanding surrender has about 1/20th (or less) the active wars as IRON/DAWN do? For someone demanding terms you sure aren't fighting very hard.

Or do you mean in the same way its interesting that not gramlins are declaring on the IRON nations in the top ranks that are not in peace mode?