The New Grämlins

[Lord GVChamp]

I am a major fan of these new gRAMlins. They provide some pretty epic lulz to Planet Bob and put other surrender terms in a much, much clearer moral light.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='wickedj' date='31 March 2010 - 06:35 PM' timestamp='1270074890' post='2242531']
GGA accusing others of violating the charter? Oh my.... BTW JB, hows that \m/ treaty coming you've been after for so many months

Also, whats this got to do with GGA and NSO who i see all over this thread? far as i can tell this is between IRON and those fighting IRON
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]What does this have to do with RIA, or MK, or Ronin, or the Ninjas? Either way, the point is an injury to one of us is an injury to all. We cannot ignore the injustices perpetrated by Gre. They must be destroyed.[/color]

[Stonewall Jaxon]

I am no moralist, but I know dishonor and cowardice when I see them. Poor showing, Grämlins; I never expected something like this from you.

Edited for spelling

Edited March 31, 2010 by Stonewall Jaxon

[neneko]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='01 April 2010 - 12:50 AM' timestamp='1270075813' post='2242549']
Oh, you mean the ones which are stalled by the demand for complete military disarmament and unconditional surrender?
[/quote]
Well, close. I mean the ones where we're discussing the unconditional surrender demand. If there weren't anything stalling the peace there wouldn't really be much to discuss.

[SiCkO]

[quote name='flak attack' date='31 March 2010 - 03:03 PM' timestamp='1270073003' post='2242492']
Guys, I think what you're missing is that this is moral. Anyone remember when TMF made GDI surrender unconditionally?
[/quote]

which resulted in the disbandment of GDI, something I don't think IRON wants

[AirMe]

[quote name='SiCkO' date='31 March 2010 - 07:48 PM' timestamp='1270079264' post='2242598']
which resulted in the disbandment of GDI, something I don't think IRON wants
[/quote]

I can assure you that 95% of the people on my side don't agree with disbandment either.

[Zangmonkey]

Is IRON afraid?
That's the big question here.

To those of you criticizing "terms": No terms have been offered. It it IRON's decision whether or not to demonstrate their defeat. A complete and unconditional surrender is the only rational avenue to pursue given the nations IRON has in peace mode.

None of you have a basis for calling GRE cruel, maligned, tyrants nor anything of the sort because you have nothing to use against us. We have offered no crippling peace terms.

The terms in question were offered weeks ago and IRON refused. Instead they kept us, and our friends, in a state of warfare.
The terms were withdrawn.

None of you should question this premise: old terms are no longer valid after a following extended period of war.

[Chief Savage Man]

[quote name='wickedj' date='31 March 2010 - 06:35 PM' timestamp='1270074890' post='2242531']
Oh my.... BTW JB, hows that \m/ treaty coming you've been after for so many months
[/quote]

For the love of God, don't even make me think about something like that.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 07:59 PM' timestamp='1270079949' post='2242612']
Is IRON afraid?
That's the big question here.

To those of you criticizing "terms": No terms have been offered. It it IRON's decision whether or not to demonstrate their defeat. A complete and unconditional surrender is the only rational avenue to pursue given the nations IRON has in peace mode.

None of you have a basis for calling GRE cruel, maligned, tyrants nor anything of the sort because you have nothing to use against us. We have offered no crippling peace terms.

The terms in question were offered weeks ago and IRON refused. Instead they kept us, and our friends, in a state of warfare.
The terms were withdrawn.

None of you should question this premise: old terms are no longer valid after a following extended period of war.
[/quote]

But you insist on continuing the conflict even though the friends you entered to defend have already secured terms to leave. Don't blame us for something that lies on you. The rest of us know why we were in this conflict and yet you guys think you are King of the hill and can keep us all in this war to feed your egos. I hate to tell you guys because I used to REALLY respect you....get off your high horse you are a shell of what you used to be.

EDIT: AND you didn't notify any of the people you are fighting for that you had taken the terms off the table UNTIL AFTER everything else was already accepted. Again, this is all on your shoulders and no one elses.

Edited April 1, 2010 by AirMe

[Trout]

[quote name='Jonathan Brookbank' date='31 March 2010 - 03:03 PM' timestamp='1270062174' post='2242204']

Tyrants rise and tyrants fall. No one rules forever.
[/quote]
I saw this coming a mile away.

[Topside the Hun]

I think everyone should take a careful look at what effect Gramlins position has presented.

First you must surrender unconditionally, then if we present you with our terms and you don’t like them, too bad you don’t have any nukes or any defenses so we will now proceed to beat you into submission. Obviously this “Unconditional Surrender” requirement is meant to be rejected.

Two, Gramlins has all but withdrawn from the war, one nation of less than 500 NS doesn’t really count. So they can continue to hold this position as long as they desire, they aren’t losing any infra or tech from it.

Now why is Gramlins demanding such a ridiculous requirement prior to issuing their terms. Obviously they believe they are entitled to this position. They did after all fight nearly 70 wars with IRON and Company over the last 8 weeks. They made a huge sacrifice by declaring on the average, 9 wars a week, and now they are entitled to reparations. Exactly what they won’t say, my guess is they are trying to add up all the damage from those 70 wars.

The allies fighting on the same side as Gramlins, (They are not Gramlin allies, Gramlins doesn’t hold a treaty with anyone but MHA) continue to lose as much NS every week as Gramlins lost in the entire war, probably more. It appears to me that Gramlins wants to ensure that they get a lock on the top nations in CN. They are by their Wiki entry an economic powerhouse and their current war performance shows they have no stomach for battle.

What is not obvious is that CnG and everyone else on that side of the war are having serious discussions on how to resolve this issue. This is bound to lead to disagreement on how to resolve the issue. And that my friends is the first step in splintering the allies lined up against IRON and company. This is a historic moment, for no matter how this turns out, Gramlins has managed to instigate the beginnings of discord amongst all the alliances lined up against IRON.

I would go further to say that IRON and company can only benefit by Gramlins behaviour and the longer it continues the more IRON has to gain. In fact IRON can just sit back and say to CnG “Well we’re ready to surrender just get your side together.” Then they sit back and watch as CnG and allies argue over what is to be done. Arguments lead to fights and hurt feelings, all the while IRON waits patiently, gathering support. So I don’t see any motivation for IRON to help resolve the issue. This is clearly a situation that favours IRON.

Finally, should Gramlins ever find that Harmilns accord canceled I suspect you will see the quickest beat down of any alliance in the entire history of CN and no one will shed a tear.

[Iotupa]

[quote name='wickedj' date='31 March 2010 - 06:35 PM' timestamp='1270074890' post='2242531']
BTW JB, hows that \m/ treaty coming you've been after for so many months[/quote]

Oh, gosh...that's a good one. For one thing, I've been government for all of 38 days now. For another, \m/ is one of the few alliances I can pretty much guarantee you will not see a treaty from the GGA with.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 07:59 PM' timestamp='1270079949' post='2242612']
Is IRON afraid?
That's the big question here.

To those of you criticizing "terms": No terms have been offered. It it IRON's decision whether or not to demonstrate their defeat. A complete and unconditional surrender is the only rational avenue to pursue given the nations IRON has in peace mode.

None of you have a basis for calling GRE cruel, maligned, tyrants nor anything of the sort because you have nothing to use against us. We have offered no crippling peace terms.

The terms in question were offered weeks ago and IRON refused. Instead they kept us, and our friends, in a state of warfare.
The terms were withdrawn.

None of you should question this premise: old terms are no longer valid after a following extended period of war.
[/quote]

Confirmation that Grämlins is just that tyrannical. Thanks for confirming, although I would have much preferred you denied it and fixed your mistake.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='AirMe' date='31 March 2010 - 04:03 PM' timestamp='1270080209' post='2242618']
But you insist on continuing the conflict even though the friends you entered to defend have already secured terms to leave. Don't blame us for something that lies on you. The rest of us know why we were in this conflict and yet you guys think you are King of the hill and can keep us all in this war to feed your egos. I hate to tell you guys because I used to REALLY respect you....get off your high horse you are a shell of what you used to be.
[/quote]


During my brief period as Praetor I thought I was very clear to everybody that GRE's involvement and everybody else's involvement were not inherently linked.
Just because one alliance exits the conflict doesn't mean GRE does nor vice versa.

My high horse?
This negotiating is between a victor and a defeated party. Surrender if the first step in recognizing that fact.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]None of you should question this premise: old terms are no longer valid after a following extended period of war.[/quote]
Except that by your Codex you can't have been demanding reparations or anything else that would expire in the first place.

[quote]None of you have a basis for calling GRE cruel, maligned, tyrants nor anything of the sort because you have nothing to use against us. We have offered no crippling peace terms.[/quote]
You offered peace terms, waited until they were agreed, then withdrew them, and are now refusing to offer peace at all, without IRON agreeing to disarm itself while you are still attacking them. This is widely agreed upon by informed people on both sides so it can be taken as read. This is on the same level as VietFAN or GOONS v Fark, particularly as the alliance you are nominally fighting for (MK) has agreed to peace.

I hope C&G get sick of your shens and agree to a peace so you can feel the other end of this situation.

But you, Matthew, in you I am disappointed. I thought you were one of the sane ones.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 08:07 PM' timestamp='1270080406' post='2242624']
During my brief period as Praetor I thought I was very clear to everybody that GRE's involvement and everybody else's involvement were not inherently linked.
Just because one alliance exits the conflict doesn't mean GRE does nor vice versa.

My high horse?
This negotiating is between a victor and a defeated party. Surrender if the first step in recognizing that fact.
[/quote]

So you will have no issue when we leave your sorry rear on the battlefield to fend for yourselves? Also, you are making the same mistake TOP did. TOP tried to say they were part of the the Polaris \m/ conflict when they weren't. And now you are saying you are separate from the bigger conflict when you aren't.

Then again, I shouldn't correct you on that because that gives us an easy out for your stupidity and stubbornness.

[SiCkO]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 05:07 PM' timestamp='1270080406' post='2242624']
During my brief period as Praetor I thought I was very clear to everybody that GRE's involvement and everybody else's involvement were not inherently linked.
Just because one alliance exits the conflict doesn't mean GRE does nor vice versa.

[/quote]

so you're admitting to violating your "codex" over a grudge?

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='01 April 2010 - 01:10 AM' timestamp='1270080601' post='2242625']
But you, Matthew, in you I am disappointed. I thought you were one of the sane ones.
[/quote]

He is, but mystique, legend and bravdo are hard things to ignore even for the most intelligent. Someone mentioned something about "ego's" think it was airme, you not only hit the nail on the head you drove it through the board.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='31 March 2010 - 07:59 PM' timestamp='1270079949' post='2242612']
Is IRON afraid?
That's the big question here.

To those of you criticizing "terms": No terms have been offered. It it IRON's decision whether or not to demonstrate their defeat. A complete and unconditional surrender is the only rational avenue to pursue given the nations IRON has in peace mode.

None of you have a basis for calling GRE cruel, maligned, tyrants nor anything of the sort because you have nothing to use against us. We have offered no crippling peace terms.

The terms in question were offered weeks ago and IRON refused. Instead they kept us, and our friends, in a state of warfare.
The terms were withdrawn.

None of you should question this premise: old terms are no longer valid after a following extended period of war.
[/quote]

First, IRON moving to peace mode is strategic move. The fact that two blocs are pounding down on them made them realize that they stand to lose a lot. And they have made it quite clear that they do want peace, just more reasonable terms. That's what negotiating is for.

And unconditional surrender implies that you can do whatever you want to them, no negotiations. That is contradictory to what you want, which is peace for your allies. This war will only be further prolonged by your ludicrous demands.

You have absolutely no basis to demand unconditional surrender. IRON attacked CnG, not you. You declared war on IRON aggressively. I really don't see how you'll get out of this one. Like I said, this is political suicide for you, no matter how hard you try to spin it.

[Lennox]

The current Gremlin leadership is a disgrace to their predecessors. Good job acting like the old NPO (worse even) which you so vehemently hated.

[Venizelos]

ITT JB tries to feel important

peace negotiations between two alliances are between those two alliances and i dont see how you have anything to do with them.


also, zomg GGAers talking about NPO and what a big bad guy it is/was.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Venizelos

[SiCkO]

[quote name='AirMe' date='31 March 2010 - 04:56 PM' timestamp='1270079782' post='2242607']
I can assure you that 95% of the people on my side don't agree with disbandment either.
[/quote]

that is comforting to know.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='31 March 2010 - 04:10 PM' timestamp='1270080601' post='2242625']
Except that by your Codex you can't have been demanding reparations or anything else that would expire in the first place.[/quote]

Except that your interpretation of the codex apparently differs from mine. What reparations is GRE demanding?


[quote]You offered peace terms, waited until they were agreed, then withdrew them, and are now refusing to offer peace at all, without IRON agreeing to disarm itself while you are still attacking them. This is widely agreed upon by informed people on both sides so it can be taken as read. This is on the same level as VietFAN or GOONS v Fark, particularly as the alliance you are nominally fighting for (MK) has agreed to peace.

I hope C&G get sick of your shens and agree to a peace so you can feel the other end of this situation.

But you, Matthew, in you I am disappointed. I thought you were one of the sane ones.
[/quote]

We offered terms which IRON did not accept. Then, weeks later, they decided to take them as if they were still valid. Bob, you know better than to characterize terms in that way. All terms have a time limit; all of them. This is not new.

Disappointed in me? I've put my pixels where my mouth is.
It's you that's speculating. Have you any clairvoyance that when IRON surrenders we won't simply release them?

I am glad MK has found peace. IRON has insisted that GRE is an aggressive party and consequently it seems outside the MK peace discussions.
You can't have it both ways.
Either GRE is a defensive party, defending MK; or we are an aggressive party and are outside the peace discussions with MK.

Pick your poison.
I'm looking forward to a speedy end to hostilities.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Venizelos' date='31 March 2010 - 08:17 PM' timestamp='1270081007' post='2242631']
ITT JB tries to feel important

peace negotiations between two alliances are between those two alliances and i dont see how you have anything to do with them.


also, zomg GGAers talking about NPO and what a big bad guy it is/was.
[/quote]

Congratulations on making an irrelevant conclusion. This place is just full of fallacious arguments.

[potato]

I'm finding this very interesting.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Jrenster' date='31 March 2010 - 04:13 PM' timestamp='1270080791' post='2242629']
First, IRON moving to peace mode is strategic move. [/quote]
We agree there! In fact, it's a strategy which puts GRE at significant risk, especially given your point (bolded) below....

[quote]The fact that two blocs are pounding down on them made them realize that they stand to lose a lot. And they have made it quite clear that they do want peace, just more reasonable terms. That's what negotiating is for.

And unconditional surrender implies that you can do whatever you want to them, no negotiations. That is contradictory to what you want, which is peace for your allies. This war will only be further prolonged by your ludicrous demands.

You have absolutely no basis to demand unconditional surrender. [b]IRON attacked CnG, not you. You declared war on IRON aggressively.[/b] I really don't see how you'll get out of this one. Like I said, this is political suicide for you, no matter how hard you try to spin it.
[/quote]


If that's, in fact, your position. Then you need not concern yourself with MK's position versus ours.
We can, and are, making separate demands from IRON than is MK. IRON is free to choose our terms, theirs, or both.