The New Grämlins

[shilo]

[quote name='Cataduanes' date='14 April 2010 - 04:55 PM' timestamp='1271256912' post='2260122']
well hell put it out there , what would you find acceptable?
[/quote]
Well, my opinion on this is clear, but I won't make any comment on this in public that might later bite me in the rearend

My experience with the past war is that such things are best handled in private between the concerned parties, so that's how I think this should end as well, we will just have to apply force on the gRAMlins until they get to that point, might take longer...

Edited April 14, 2010 by shilo

[Jhouserok[FCC]]

I really miss having to deal with New Gramlins.

[MCRABT]

[quote name='Cataduanes' date='14 April 2010 - 03:55 PM' timestamp='1271256912' post='2260122']
well hell put it out there , what would you find acceptable?
[/quote]

I'd like to see Gremlins follow their codex and agree to a mutual white peace. That is however only my personal view and I cannot speak on behalf of other councillors.

[DogeWilliam]

Gramlins is still around?

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='nutkase' date='14 April 2010 - 03:09 AM' timestamp='1271232541' post='2259859']
TOP looking at re-entering given your question?

When you answer that with a yes or no, I will answer yours.
[/quote]
No. The Order of the Paradox is currently rebuilding itself from the past conflict and looking to fulfill it's obligations as per the surrender terms we signed. I await your answer.

[quote]Play chess. It's easy there, they're either black or white, to your liking. Here, things are a bit more complicated.
Ok, so do you really want to know a straightforward answer to those questions?[/quote]
The issue may be complicated due to your "friendship" with the Ramlins, however, in the end your choices are quite simple. You either support this type of behavior or you do not. If you don't then let them handle the consequences of their decisions by themselves (that would be where you would answer [u]"no"[/u]). If you do support their behavior then the answer is obviously [u]yes[/u].

I think alot of people would like a straightforward answer from MHA.

[Cormalek]

And if we don't support full-on assault of Gre while trying to help resolving this through diplomatic channels, then the answer is what? Gulgamesh? Nes? C'thulhu? This is not a yes or no question. Hell, there's even no question! Hopefully some of those directly involved will get much more info on this subject shortly (I can't help to speed things up - other masking privileges).

There are many factors that relate to this, and OWF is not involved in resolving any of them.

[Crymson]

[quote name='scutterbug' date='14 April 2010 - 01:58 AM' timestamp='1271231905' post='2259855']
Coming from the man whos decisions saw TOP go down in flames, thats rich to say the least.
[/quote]

I'm going to echo MCRABT's question towards you on this one.

Edited April 14, 2010 by Crymson

[Crymson]

[quote name='majorddf' date='14 April 2010 - 03:38 AM' timestamp='1271237918' post='2259895']
I will say two things...

1) Gre and MHA are very much their own Alliances. We share a close bond that many other Alliances do not. Do not however mistake that for a Puppet/Master relationship. Gre do their thing, we do ours. In relation to the current goings on, we are Observing. No more, no less.
[/quote]

I have heard members of MHA refer to MHA and the Gramlins as "the same alliance"; also, I heard your leaders say a few months ago that the bond was tenuous and that the what the Gramlins wanted would no longer be playing a primary role in MHA's foreign affairs decisions (this, of course, turned out to be false). Both of these statements refute what you're saying here.

As a point information: MHA did not cancel their treaty with the NPO; the NPO's surrender terms canceled all MDP-level treaties.


[quote name='scutterbug' date='14 April 2010 - 03:57 AM' timestamp='1271239021' post='2259911']
"And the cancellation on NPO during Karma, and the cancellation on TOP during the last war. I must add though, I can't judge whether they canceled it because there was no friendship left(I'd respect that), or whether they canceled it because they were opportunistic. Although some of the posts of their actions and posts make me believe it's the second one."

Something you clearly have no clue about regarding MHA/TOP due to the fact you aint even a member of either. Dont blame me when i respond in kind.
[/quote]

I imagine TSO knows our side of the story quite well. As it seems to be of greater veracity than MHA's side---as that alliance's government seems to have circulated some untrue statements to their membership regarding the matter---I'd say they're quite well-informed on the issue.

Also, I'm going to need to have a good laugh at the fact that you don't know your own alliance's history well enough to refute his point regarding MHA's eternal treaty with the NPO.

Edited April 14, 2010 by Crymson

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='shilo' date='14 April 2010 - 07:22 AM' timestamp='1271254951' post='2260105']
The problem is, no one knows what is afterwards. And since we would only find out after we have surrendered unconditionally, every and any term given to us must be accepted, or we would have to break the surrender agreement, start militarizing (of course, if let's say improvements had to be destroyed, wonders as well, that will not be possible at all, the nuke stockpiles will be gone as well, and all nations currently save in peace mode will be open for attacks by the gRAMlins) again, with the aforementioned problems.
It's exactly why we are so determined to see this fight not end like this.
[/quote]


How many times have I said that demilitarization and surrender does not imply that you can't return to a state of war from the table?
I suppose at least you're being consistent....

Furthermore, I think the process of "demilitarization" is adequately outlined. You can correct me if I am wrong.

[Crymson]

[quote name='scutterbug' date='14 April 2010 - 04:12 AM' timestamp='1271239942' post='2259925']
Nope not at all, all my points have mentioned IRON not a single bleep about DAWN. So please come back with something more relevant. All you specified in your post was the term us. That to me means you are talking about yourselves, aka DAWN. Which frankly im not interested in a 12 man oppurtunistic alliance who rides into a war without even posting a DoW.
[/quote]

Is it possible you're missing a vital piece of info? Oh, here it is: IRON and DAWN entered the war initially as a unit. For all intents and purposes, DAWN, as a military entity, had been temporarily absorbed into IRON.

[quote name='scutterbug' date='14 April 2010 - 05:03 AM' timestamp='1271242994' post='2259955']
The same bob where TOP declared a whole new war on a completly uninvolved block endangering all of its allies because of its own paranoia?
[/quote]

Ah, yes---it's the man who accused us of being paranoid and was scathingly rude to us even before the war, claiming that "IRON has been whispering in your ears!"

Scutterbug, "No, U!" arguments are not going to work in this instance. That's a shame for you, as such is the only argument style you're versed in.


[quote name='Baden-Württemberg' date='14 April 2010 - 05:18 AM' timestamp='1271243903' post='2259967']
We weren't happy with the way this whole thing started, they knew that. However, from the first second on they had our promise for assistance, because we knew that they are in a tricky situation. That is why we fought, and that is also why we are accepting the consequences of this war. That said, TOP indeed tried to get us out of this war, however we declined that, and I think, CnG as well. (I am not going into detail, since this is far from the topic of the thread, but if you want to hear the full thing, you can PM or query me)
[/quote]

When, after the first night of the war, it became clear that things weren't going as well as we'd planned---NpO and \m/ had reached a peace agreement, etc.---I actually asked TSO's government to stay out of the war. However, loyal allies and great friends as they are, they decided to come in anyways. These are not the actions of puppets, methinks.


[quote name='Matthew PK' date='14 April 2010 - 10:39 AM' timestamp='1271263136' post='2260201']
How many times have I said that demilitarization and surrender does not imply that you can't return to a state of war from the table?
I suppose at least you're being consistent....

Furthermore, I think the process of "demilitarization" is adequately outlined. You can correct me if I am wrong.
[/quote]

Does it entail their nations decommissioning nukes and navies? Does it entail their nations exiting peace mode?

And to begin with, do you realize that Planet Bob finds pre-terms demilitarization unacceptable in any regard and in any event? This is something you're having a difficult time getting through your head.

Edited April 14, 2010 by Crymson

[Cataduanes]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='14 April 2010 - 05:39 PM' timestamp='1271263136' post='2260201']
How many times have I said that demilitarization and surrender does not imply that you can't return to a state of war from the table?
I suppose at least you're being consistent....

Furthermore, I think the process of "demilitarization" is adequately outlined. You can correct me if I am wrong.
[/quote]
Can you link me to a post where "demilitarization" has been clearly outlined? forgive my intrusion but i tend to view the term "demilitarization" as meaning the possiblity of going back to war being curtailed somewhat

[Cormalek]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='14 April 2010 - 06:39 PM' timestamp='1271263136' post='2260201']
How many times have I said that demilitarization and surrender does not imply that you can't return to a state of war from the table?
I suppose at least you're being consistent....

Furthermore, I think the process of "demilitarization" is adequately outlined. You can correct me if I am wrong.
[/quote]

Sorry Matthew, but it does mean just this. Nation can build nukes, navy vessels and wonders only once for oh so often [ooc: daily nukes and navy purchase limit+wonder clock]. War battered nations have also overstretched resources. [ooc: negative improvements]. And if they agree to unconditional surrender, and then are presented with unreasonable terms, they will not be in a position to defend themselves, and even if they tried - they'd give Gre a semi-valid CB (for all it's worth at this point) to continue the war (but at this point in form of senseless beating). I remind you that this war has been going on for a while now, so money reserves [ooc: war chests] have to be depleted.

[edit: "ooc" missing in a bracket ]

Edited April 14, 2010 by Cormalek

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Crymson' date='14 April 2010 - 09:40 AM' timestamp='1271263194' post='2260203']
And to begin with, do you realize that Planet Bob finds pre-terms demilitarization unacceptable in any regard and in any event? This is something you're having a difficult time getting through your head.
[/quote]

Thank you, Crymson, for being the official voice of the entire planet!

[Carlton the Great]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='14 April 2010 - 01:01 PM' timestamp='1271264478' post='2260228']
Thank you, Crymson, for being the official voice of the entire planet!
[/quote]
I don't know if you've noticed, but this thread is 56 pages of posts saying the exact same thing...

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Carlton the Great' date='14 April 2010 - 10:04 AM' timestamp='1271264679' post='2260231']
I don't know if you've noticed, but this thread is 56 pages of posts saying the exact same thing...
[/quote]

Not in the slightest.
In fact, most of the "outrage" is against some nebulous idea that IRON/DAWN will be forced to be GRE slaves.
Of course, there are those who have valid points but they are hardly in the majority of this thread.

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='14 April 2010 - 12:39 PM' timestamp='1271263136' post='2260201']
How many times have I said that demilitarization and surrender does not imply that you can't return to a state of war from the table?[/quote]

That's one of the dumbest things I've had the pleasure of reading on this forum.

'The table' is the place where you discuss such things. It doesn't work the other way around. Your inability to see why this is a problem is the cause of this current PR disaster.

[quote]Furthermore, I think the process of "demilitarization" is adequately outlined. You can correct me if I am wrong.[/quote]

I'd say you understand demilitarization quite well, given Gramlins' ~10% drop in NS over the last three or four days. It's almost as if you've offered to meet IRON part-way in terms of demilitarization.

Last one out, please turn off the lights.

[Cataduanes]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='14 April 2010 - 06:01 PM' timestamp='1271264478' post='2260228']
Thank you, Crymson, for being the official voice of the entire planet!
[/quote]
Dunno if you have noticed but your not exactly getting alot of vocal support over the "demilitarization", its not just the likes of TOP, IRON, DAWN, etc who find your aims unpalatable

[shilo]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='14 April 2010 - 07:01 PM' timestamp='1271264478' post='2260228']
Thank you, Crymson, for being the official voice of the entire planet!
[/quote]
The thing is, he is actually in that regard. Just letting you know. Check the voices of your only ally left, check the voices in this thread, in the general surrender thread. You are so special that you managed to unite everyone in disgust against your demands. And please, don't try once more to redefine terms that are already so clearly defined, it's not gonna work.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' date='14 April 2010 - 10:09 AM' timestamp='1271264949' post='2260234']
That's one of the dumbest things I've had the pleasure of reading on this forum.

'The table' is the place where you discuss such things. It doesn't work the other way around. Your inability to see why this is a problem is the cause of this current PR disaster.



I'd say you understand demilitarization quite well, given Gramlins' ~10% drop in NS over the last three or four days. It's almost as if you've offered to meet IRON part-way in terms of demilitarization.

Last one out, please turn off the lights.
[/quote]

'The table' is the place at which the terms to end the war will be discussed.
Our position is that we will not meet at said table until IRON/DAWN demilitarize and surrender.


And regarding our drop in NS: so you clearly think GRE has compromised?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='shilo' date='14 April 2010 - 10:10 AM' timestamp='1271265033' post='2260237']
The thing is, he is actually in that regard. Just letting you know. Check the voices of your only ally left, check the voices in this thread, in the general surrender thread. You are so special that you managed to unite everyone in disgust against your demands. And please, don't try once more to redefine terms that are already so clearly defined, it's not gonna work.
[/quote]

My contention is that most people on the planet have no real understanding of our demands but simply dance to the tune of the piper.

[jstep]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='14 April 2010 - 01:14 PM' timestamp='1271265245' post='2260240']
My contention is that most people on the planet have no real understanding of our demands but simply dance to the tune of the piper.
[/quote]

I guess those who are contributing to the declining Gremlins member count also have no real understanding of your demands?

[mike717]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='14 April 2010 - 12:08 PM' timestamp='1271264878' post='2260232']
Not in the slightest.
In fact, most of the "outrage" is against some nebulous idea that IRON/DAWN will be forced to be GRE slaves.
Of course, there are those who have valid points but they are hardly in the majority of this thread.
[/quote]


No matthew, the "outrage" truly is that your alliance wishes another alliance to completely demilitarize before even talking to your leadership about ending the war, giving your alliance a significant upper hand should IRON not like where those talks are going.

The outrage is that you are forcing another alliance to accept a mystery box, and for the privledge of accepting said mystery box they also get to lose their nukes, soldiers, and improvements limiting their ability to defend themselves should they not like that "mystery box"

And finally, the outrage is that your alliance is will not even discuss terms with a war weary opponent without them first casting themselves at your feet and hoping for mercy from the mighty Gre leadership. No one here actually think you are going to disband IRON, or install a viceroy or any of that crap, but the longer you play this out the more you look like pompous egomaniacal jackasses looking humiliate an alliance[i] just because you can. [/i]

Edited April 14, 2010 by mike717

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='14 April 2010 - 01:12 PM' timestamp='1271265153' post='2260238']
And regarding our drop in NS: so you clearly think GRE has compromised?
[/quote]
No, I'd say it's more like a rats/sinking ship scenario.

[shilo]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='14 April 2010 - 07:14 PM' timestamp='1271265245' post='2260240']
My contention is that most people on the planet have no real understanding of our demands but simply dance to the tune of the piper.
[/quote]
Well, seeing as your demands continue to remain dubious, or you try to describe them with terms with a very clear meaning, and when people then obviously are outraged considering the meaning of those terms (complete demilitarization and unconditional surrender as pre-terms) you simply go ahead and try to redefine them.

So my contention is, you have generally no real understanding of what you post, and simply are dancing to rams tune leading you and your gang of friends into a very dark and isolated corner.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' date='14 April 2010 - 09:41 AM' timestamp='1271234461' post='2259873']
The most stupid comments in this thread. Well done Somehow I have this weird nagging feeling that you're both wrong!
[/quote]
You must have missed the post where MHA said they dont know what Shamlins are up to but think Ramwedge has a plan and think this is an acceptable situation for treaty partners to be in. It that context it was a fair comment.