The New Grämlins

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 July 2010 - 12:56 PM' timestamp='1278608173' post='2363535']
Emphasis mine.

I find your post incredibly ironic considering I have been saying for quite some time now that we believe it's possible to support a cause without having the might to force the results via military victory.
[/quote]

Its not becuase you keep missing step two.

You still need the military force to make your moral stand sucessful. While a military victory does not equate with a moral cause, you cannot enfroce a change without the military force. This is what I've been trying to drill into your head for a long long time.

Even if Gre is in the right here(Please note I don't think you are) You still should have ceased attempting to push this agenda when it became clear you lacked the ability to enforce your will. Losing proves nothing, and the farce that has followed your attempt has shattered all credibility you once had.

[quote]
Furthermore, as I explained repeatedly, our terms were not a part of the ESA in large part because of precisely what you have stated here: forcing you to lend legitimacy is inherently doubtful given it's delivery under duress.
[/quote]

Then I ask for the 5th time, [i]why are you still at war[/i]? If you have no desire to force anything why do we not see peace and you attempting a debate with IRON?

[quote]
Yet when I outline that IRON's surrender is meritorious in this case precisely because we haven't the might to "force" them, the "common" retort has been to call me delusional.
[/quote]

You are conflating ability to perform and action with the action it self. You are not delusional for wanting an apology, you are delusional for thinking that the path you have chosen will get you what you want. You want an apology and recognition than your actions were legitimate, you will [i]not[/i] receive those from IRON as long as you insist on holding them in this ridiculous conflict. Make no mistake I'd be shocked if you got them after the war too, but you sure as hell aren't getting them now either.

[quote]
If they believe they did something wrong, then they should surrender [b]without being forced to do so[/b].
If they do not, then they should not... again, that's really the point here.
[/quote]

3 months and pushing 250 pages you haven't noticed they've chosen option two? Wake up and smell the coffee. Its blindingly obvious that they've rejected this farce you've attempted to foist off on them, so again I ask if you are not interested in forcing them, why are you still at war?

[quote]
It amazes me that you either don't get it or that you deliberately ignore it.
[/quote]

Oh I "get it", the whole OWF gets it, that's why there's 200+ pages of us calling you out for your manifest stupidity.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 July 2010 - 02:54 PM' timestamp='1278615233' post='2363653']
Because, as GRE has stated dozens of times, we do not consider IRON's surrender as an inherent agreement to comply with peace terms.
[/quote]

That's because your grasp of politics and the English language it self is as solid as your grasp on reality.

[shilo]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 July 2010 - 08:54 PM' timestamp='1278615233' post='2363653']
Sorry?

Where did I say that it's not OK for DAWN?

You may not have noticed that Synth is not in GRE.

I think I made it clear 20 pages ago that I don't really care about DAWN's involvement here; I consider it peripheral.

[/quote]
I admit it's cute, really. You want a voluntary admission of guilt from IRON because of course you know anything else is insincere. Of course you don't want to use force as you disaprove of might makes right.

Dumb thing is, when you were part of a winning coalition with the NS on your side, you did just that. You wanted to extort not only an, as you yourself admit, insincere admission of guilt, but 4000 technology and another insincere, and above all things, simply untrue statement from DAWN declaring your war to be defensive.
And all of that from such a peripheral alliance like ours!
My oh my, must our little bee sting have hurt the great military and moral power that gRAMlins are...
Now of course you don't like to hear that when you still had the power on your side, you did exactly what you criticize IRON is supposedly doing now. That's called hypocrisy. You are a hyporcrite, your alliance is a bunch of hypocrites, your leader is one (additional to being a self-appointed liar).

Now of course our alliance is small, and you'd like nothing better to brush this aside by your rather pitiful attempt of arrogance here, however, seeing as how our alliance is growing, after having been through full nuclear war, having been kept at war by you guys for 3 months now, your alliance is on the way down to be as peripheral as we are.


So, enjoy that hypocrisy and arrogance for as long as you can, it's final

Edited July 8, 2010 by shilo

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='shilo' date='08 July 2010 - 03:24 PM' timestamp='1278627824' post='2363888']
you did exactly what you criticize IRON is supposedly doing now. That's called hypocrisy. You are a hyporcrite, your alliance is a bunch of hypocrites, your leader is one (additional to being a self-appointed liar).
[/quote]


No matter how many times you say this it will not be true.

The Gremlins did not aggressively attack an uninvolved party.

You can state your opinion about what's happening now, but your attempt to muddy the waters about what GRE did versus what IRON did is abhorrent.

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='08 July 2010 - 12:29 PM' timestamp='1278617338' post='2363696']
That's because your grasp of politics and the English language it self is as solid as your grasp on reality.
[/quote]

You keep saying this as if it's relevant.

GRE says "We will do A, then B, then C; and we call it X"
You say "No, you cannot do A then B then C because that isn't what X means!"
GRE says "I don't care what you say X means, we will do A, then B, then C; call it whatever you want"
You say "Learn English!"

Edited July 9, 2010 by Matthew PK

[R3nowned]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='10 July 2010 - 02:09 AM' timestamp='1278688169' post='2364810']
No matter how many times you say this it will not be true.

The Gremlins did not aggressively attack an uninvolved party.

You can state your opinion about what's happening now, but your attempt to muddy the waters about what GRE did versus what IRON did is abhorrent.
[/quote]
You posted a DoW right? That is inherently aggressive in and of itself. Doesn't matter that you were defending someone, you still attacked them. You attacked IRON without citing a treaty. That's what IRON did to CnG. If you want to cite defence of MK, IRON could do the same with NSO. There was very little difference between your actions.

[flak attack]

[quote name='R3nowned' date='09 July 2010 - 11:21 AM' timestamp='1278688894' post='2364823']
You posted a DoW right? That is inherently aggressive in and of itself. Doesn't matter that you were defending someone, you still attacked them. You attacked IRON without citing a treaty. That's what IRON did to CnG. If you want to cite defence of MK, IRON could do the same with NSO. There was very little difference between your actions.
[/quote]
I think you left out a key detail: CnG wasn't at war with NSO.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 July 2010 - 11:09 AM' timestamp='1278688169' post='2364810']
You keep saying this as if it's relevant.

GRE says "We will do A, then B, then C; and we call it X"
You say "No, you cannot do A then B then C because that isn't what X means!"
GRE says "I don't care what you say X means, we will do A, then B, then C; call it whatever you want"
You say "Learn English!"
[/quote]

I see you fixated on only one point and completely ignored the rest of my post, why don't you go back and answer the rest of the questions instead of trying to dodge into a debate on your lack of comprehensive understanding of military and political words and phrase.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='09 July 2010 - 09:56 AM' timestamp='1278694584' post='2364902']
I see you fixated on only one point and completely ignored the rest of my post, why don't you go back and answer the rest of the questions instead of trying to dodge into a debate on your lack of comprehensive understanding of military and political words and phrase.
[/quote]


That's because it's the only point that matters to me.

I don't care whether or not you think my military prowess is up to par.
I have no interest in debating with you over whether or not GRE should "give up" because you think it's unlikely that we'll be able to convince IRON to be accountable.

Anything other than:
A) What we're demanding
B) Why we're demanding it
C) Our justification for demanding it

is a red herring

[shilo]

[quote name='flak attack' date='09 July 2010 - 05:36 PM' timestamp='1278689779' post='2364838']
I think you left out a key detail: CnG wasn't at war with NSO.
[/quote]
That is of little relevance.
When gRAMlins can call an aggressive war defensive because they were allies of you in spirit, anyone else can redefine their attacks to mean what ever the hell they think it should have been. The fact remains, no one from our side was involved in this war because we wanted to collect reparations or simply defeat you, we were all fighting for a common cause, and the reason any of us got involved is because NSO, an ally of IRON, was attacked. We just found that defending them is best served by attacking CnG, based on our estimation you would come at us the moment we would defend NSO against their initial aggressors anyways. You might call our intel wrong, but in no way was our intent aggressive in nature, despite that our involvement started by an attack.


Of course you want to call your friends gRAMlins the good defenders and secret/paperless allies who only acted defensively, simply because they are your friends. Just don't expect that any of us goes along and simply let's your allies call themselves good Samaritans for the very same actions you criticize us for.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='shilo' date='09 July 2010 - 12:49 PM' timestamp='1278704939' post='2365076']
Of course you want to call your friends gRAMlins the good defenders and secret/paperless allies who only acted defensively, simply because they are your friends. Just don't expect that any of us goes along and simply let's your allies call themselves good Samaritans for the very same actions you criticize us for.
[/quote]


Again the old lie?


GRE is not criticizing IRON for defending a friend with or without a treaty; we don't care whether you have a treaty or not.

We care that you attacked our friends, [b]who were not involved[/b], for no valid reason.

I care that it seems that none of you think you did anything wrong. If that is the case, I'd like to see some official statement of such. If it's not, then you're raging in an attempt to avoid accepting accountability.

[Derantol]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 July 2010 - 01:36 PM' timestamp='1278707748' post='2365113']
...for no valid reason.
[/quote]

Except that anyone we were going to attack was going to be defended by CnG. Remember, we generally view wars as a coalition effort. Maybe we didn't make the right call strategically, but your friends were going to be involved one way or another. You keep stressing that they weren't involved; I seem to remember someone quoting Archon where he stated that if we attacked his treaty partners, he'd come to their defense - and he shouldn't act any differently. We made a strategic decision that backfired, but if we were going to be fighting them anyway, what's the difference?

[SynthFG]

[quote name='Derantol' date='09 July 2010 - 10:01 PM' timestamp='1278709275' post='2365141']
Except that anyone we were going to attack was going to be defended by CnG. Remember, we generally view wars as a coalition effort. Maybe we didn't make the right call strategically, but your friends were going to be involved one way or another. You keep stressing that they weren't involved; I seem to remember someone quoting Archon where he stated that if we attacked his treaty partners, he'd come to their defense - and he shouldn't act any differently. We made a strategic decision that backfired, but if we were going to be fighting them anyway, what's the difference?
[/quote]
There was no need for you to attack tho
The NpO \m/ war was a little localised conflict that was only ever going to end one way, but which was giving both sides a great deal of fun

Had you guys stayed on the periphery then so would CnG and the war would have peaced out within a few days to a week, then again the major conflict was ending as you stuck you oar in and turned a local war into a global one

The reason this game is getting dull is that nobody can run a decent cold war any-more, especially on your side, In one swift move over the new year TOP gov managed to push Gre FOK and MHA away which then led to the collapse of Cit, moves which destroyed the balance of power to your detriment, yet your gov still pushed all in on a pair of 4's

[Alterego]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 July 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1278707748' post='2365113']
I care that it seems that none of you think you did anything wrong. If that is the case, I'd like to see some official statement of such. If it's not, then you're raging in an attempt to avoid accepting accountability.
[/quote]
What did they do that was wrong. Why are Gramlins the alliance deciding what is morally right and wrong on bob. When you finish that explain why IRON are accountable to you or your bandwagon alliance when the people they attacked have agreed peace and are trying to move on.

Also, stop talking about friends, this isnt a playground. I know the quaint idea of being bosom buddies might appeal to children but this is a place of politics not a place of fairy tales and rainbows. Its a place where people join a group (alliance) and sign treaties to show the world and their friends who they are connected to militarily. Your alliance is in bits and you the whole world is laughing at you because your magical land of make believe friends has come crashing down on your head. FYI friends dont ignore their friends wishes and drag out a war they peaced out of months ago. Thats what people who arent friends do. Unfortunately because of your magical make believe friendship they cant ditch you as a friend because its whats in your mind that counts to you. This is why Gramlins are going out of existence, where are your friends now buddy? They are watching you die or arent really your friends. How can you sit there and do nothing as your alliance is torn to pieces. I would be ashamed to have a fully intact nation while my alliance(your actual supposed friends) die.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='09 July 2010 - 04:45 PM' timestamp='1278711925' post='2365178']
In one swift move over the new year TOP gov managed to push Gre FOK and MHA away which then led to the collapse of Cit, moves which destroyed the balance of power to your detriment, yet your gov still pushed all in on a pair of 4's
[/quote]
Good to see your still living in your own little world.

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='09 July 2010 - 06:00 PM' timestamp='1278712794' post='2365193']
Good to see your still living in your own little world.
[/quote]

1. Clearly TOP is evil and is responsible for all that is wrong in CN
2. IRON please engage Gramlins >100k NS nations already and pound them into the dust
3. Feanor mask me on your goddamn forums as the new RIA diplomat XD

[Williambonney]

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' date='09 July 2010 - 06:05 PM' timestamp='1278713110' post='2365196']
1. Clearly TOP is evil and is responsible for all that is wrong in CN
2. IRON please engage Gramlins >100k NS nations already and pound them into the dust
3. Feanor mask me on your goddamn forums as the new RIA diplomat XD
[/quote]

Personally, I blame mtv

[Sandwich Controversy]

Can I just end part of this argument once and for all and say, as the guy who ran all of this, that had TOP entered the war we'd have immediately jumped them

[shilo]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 July 2010 - 10:36 PM' timestamp='1278707748' post='2365113']

We care that you attacked our friends, [b]who were not involved[/b], for no valid reason.
[/quote]
Again the old lie?
We had a reason, you might disagree with it. But to suggest we just woke up one day and thought "hey, let's declare on CnG today for no valid reason, it could be fun" is not just a stupid one, it's simply untrue. NSO was under great duress, and an ally of IRON. We also agreed with NpO's reasons for their war against m, and not knowing of the betryal from the traitors, we made a strategic decision where to engage to best ensure a favorable result.
[quote name='Matthew PK' date='09 July 2010 - 10:36 PM' timestamp='1278707748' post='2365113']
I care that it seems that none of you think you did anything wrong. If that is the case, I'd like to see some official statement of such. If it's not, then you're raging in an attempt to avoid accepting accountability.
[/quote]
Strategically it was wrong. And I would say most of us also accept that it wasn't a clear cut decision to engage a party pre-emptive. Again, not as you try spin - with no reason- but even with one we felt was good, it was a questionable decision. But that is something only concerning us and CnG. You have nothing to do with that except act as if you were important or involved in this, both of which is not the case.

[quote name='SynthFG' date='09 July 2010 - 11:45 PM' timestamp='1278711925' post='2365178']
There was no need for you to attack tho
The NpO \m/ war was a little localised conflict that was only ever going to end one way, but which was giving both sides a great deal of fun

Had you guys stayed on the periphery then so would CnG and the war would have peaced out within a few days to a week, then again the major conflict was ending as you stuck you oar in and turned a local war into a global one

The reason this game is getting dull is that nobody can run a decent cold war any-more, especially on your side, In one swift move over the new year TOP gov managed to push Gre FOK and MHA away which then led to the collapse of Cit, moves which destroyed the balance of power to your detriment, yet your gov still pushed all in on a pair of 4's
[/quote]
You suggest that NSO should have been continued to be pounded without support because... that's what allies do? I seem to remember (likely you were among those) almost all from the other side of the web mocking us for our peace mode strategy during the attack against TPF. So obviously, it's not really about not getting involved or getting involved. It's really only about the fact that it's the other side of the web, and axes were to grind, and as it didn't work out quite so well to lure us in during the TPF attack, this one simply served to do the trick.

[Il Impero Romano]

Just stop it.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='09 July 2010 - 04:45 PM' timestamp='1278711925' post='2365178']
There was no need for you to attack tho
The NpO \m/ war was a little localised conflict that was only ever going to end one way, but which was giving both sides a great deal of fun

Had you guys stayed on the periphery then so would CnG and the war would have peaced out within a few days to a week, then again the major conflict was ending as you stuck you oar in and turned a local war into a global one

The reason this game is getting dull is that nobody can run a decent cold war any-more, especially on your side, In one swift move over the new year TOP gov managed to push Gre FOK and MHA away which then led to the collapse of Cit, moves which destroyed the balance of power to your detriment, yet your gov still pushed all in on a pair of 4's
[/quote]

Are you kidding me? the only reason it ended in the way it did was because TOP/co attacked. Had it not been for that, the war would have waged until either Polaris or \m/ gave up some pride/ego and conceded something they did not want to concede. That was by all means the very appearance that was given (not entirely sure if that was the actual ongoings but it was the appearance). So to state that the war would have ended as it did without TOP/co entering, is false since by the very appearance, it looked to be a long war being undergone with Polaris's side slowly being outgunned/outmaneuvered.

[SynthFG]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='10 July 2010 - 07:34 PM' timestamp='1278786831' post='2366004']
Are you kidding me? the only reason it ended in the way it did was because TOP/co attacked. Had it not been for that, the war would have waged until either Polaris or \m/ gave up some pride/ego and conceded something they did not want to concede. That was by all means the very appearance that was given (not entirely sure if that was the actual ongoings but it was the appearance). So to state that the war would have ended as it did without TOP/co entering, is false since by the very appearance, it looked to be a long war being undergone with Polaris's side slowly being outgunned/outmaneuvered.
[/quote]

Perhaps, but I still think it would have been ended sooner rather than later,
everybody was just waiting to see what TOP/IRON were going to do,

Had they stayed out then either
CnG would have also stayed out and the war would have petered out or continued to the conclusion you suggest
or
elements of CnG would have gone in and taken damage themselves in subduing polar (Unlikely due to the MK/Polar links)

Either alternative would have been to the ultimate benefit of TOP/IRON

If Polar \m/ had ended relatively quickly then we would have remained with the status quo,
If it had gone on then the NpO node of the treaty web would have been severely weakened along with chunks of SF, and we'd be closer to a proper superpower face off

And don't pretend that TOP/IRON and co couldn't have let Moldavi's Fighting Sith burn for political ends, as they did it to TPF a month before Bi-Polar kicked off

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='10 July 2010 - 01:57 PM' timestamp='1278788235' post='2366032']
Perhaps, but I still think it would have been ended sooner rather than later,
everybody was just waiting to see what TOP/IRON were going to do,

Had they stayed out then either
CnG would have also stayed out and the war would have petered out or continued to the conclusion you suggest
or
elements of CnG would have gone in and taken damage themselves in subduing polar (Unlikely due to the MK/Polar links)

Either alternative would have been to the ultimate benefit of TOP/IRON

If Polar \m/ had ended relatively quickly then we would have remained with the status quo,
If it had gone on then the NpO node of the treaty web would have been severely weakened along with chunks of SF, and we'd be closer to a proper superpower face off

And don't pretend that TOP/IRON and co couldn't have let Moldavi's Fighting Sith burn for political ends, as they did it to TPF a month before Bi-Polar kicked off
[/quote]

i do have to agree that it would have ended sooner than the TOP/Co-CnG war did. also my personal feelings on what IRON did to NSO was basically let them burn anyways, since they did not hit Fark at all and that was where NSO needed help. they instead hit CnG, which led to NSO burning anyways.

[Monster]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='10 July 2010 - 12:35 PM' timestamp='1278790534' post='2366077']
my personal feelings on what IRON did to NSO was basically let them burn anyways, since they did not hit Fark at all and that was where NSO needed help. they instead hit CnG, which led to NSO burning anyways.
[/quote]

Exactly. Ivan has said he was against the pre-emptive strike.

In Gre's defense, people wanted them there on IRON(I know I did) and when Gre cancelled its treaties with various alliance, they said they would still come to their aid, so I think the claims of bandwagoning on Gre's part are dubious.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Antoine Roquentin

[In Spades]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='10 July 2010 - 07:35 PM' timestamp='1278790534' post='2366077']
i do have to agree that it would have ended sooner than the TOP/Co-CnG war did. also my personal feelings on what IRON did to NSO was basically let them burn anyways, since they did not hit Fark at all and that was where NSO needed help. they instead hit CnG, which led to NSO burning anyways.
[/quote]

I think NSO knew they were going to get burned during the next curbstomp shortly after Frostbite bit the dust. Anyone who didn't see that coming needs their prescription checked.

Edited July 11, 2010 by In Spades

[Crymson]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='08 July 2010 - 01:29 PM' timestamp='1278617338' post='2363696']
Oh I "get it", the whole OWF gets it, that's why there's 200+ pages of us calling you out for your manifest stupidity.
[/quote]

Very well-spoken, sir.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='08 July 2010 - 07:13 AM' timestamp='1278594811' post='2363369']
did you get your definition of legitimize from Ram perhaps?
[/quote]

Ram taught Synth how to think and what to think. That accounts for much of his questionable logic and holed knowledge.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Crymson

[Crymson]

This was a double-post.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Crymson