The New Grämlins

[Baldr]

[quote name='Fernando12' date='02 May 2010 - 09:26 AM' timestamp='1272810370' post='2283741']
All this is not rocket science. Peace is easy to have. If either side really wanted peace they would have it by now.
[/quote]

IRON wants peace. They surrendered to the rest of the CnG forces, and tried to surrender to Gramlins, who wouldn't accept. They've offered white peace. Gramlins refuses to negotiate, sticking with their "unconditional surrender, become our slaves or be at war forever" nonsense.

[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]

In both cases where Gramlins fought IRON, GRamlins declared on IRON.


But I'll give you credit. The way things are going, a year from now you won't be in a position to fight anyone.

[quote name='flak attack' date='02 May 2010 - 03:40 PM' timestamp='1272832794' post='2284090']
For Gre to launch a blitz 20 minutes into a war, they obviously were ready to go on with it ahead of time (remember, it had repeatedly leaked that TOP and IRON were launching a preemptive strike against us) meaning that they agreed to take their course of action before Polar and \m/ agreed on peace.
[/quote]

It could also mean that they knew that as soon as TOP/IRON declared, that NpO and \m/ were going to declare peace.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='02 May 2010 - 09:28 PM' timestamp='1272850118' post='2284455']
So they [i]don't[/i] have to disarm before they surrender.

Of course, using Gre's Daily Changing Dictionary, surrendering won't actually mean you'll stop fighting them I'm guessing.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]Yes, Gremlins has stated several times that they can continue to pummel IRON once it has disarmed. Disarming and surrendering will not be enough to get IRON peace. That is what they have to do in order to get Gre to consider coming to the table. I am sure they'd continue the fighting for at least a week just to ensure that IRON is sufficiently wanting for peace. I mean, something must be done to satisfy Ram's ego.[/color]

[MCRABT]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='02 May 2010 - 11:10 PM' timestamp='1272838214' post='2284208']
The only reason I don't know the terms is because I haven't asked and because I don't really care at this point.
[/quote]

Is there a particular reason you don't care what terms are dished out?

[Ertyy]

[quote name='Baldr' date='02 May 2010 - 06:35 PM' timestamp='1272850526' post='2284468']
In both cases where Gramlins fought IRON, GRamlins declared on IRON.
[/quote]

Again with the intentionally obtuse one-liners. If alliance A attacks alliance B's ally, alliance C, and B responds in kind, who is the initiator of the conflict? If this happens twice who initiated the conflict?

Correct or not, you are going to have to qualify that in some way. I don't think even the lazily inconsistent standards we have seen demonstrated recently would accept that.

[quote name='MCRABT' date='02 May 2010 - 06:40 PM' timestamp='1272850841' post='2284481']
Is there a particular reason you don't care what terms are dished out?
[/quote]

I see no indication that IRON is going to surrender any time soon, so they really have no relevance to the current situation. We're not going to tell you what they are until you surrender. Maybe this is a hint that things are about to change?

Also, despite the fact that I realize it is a total waste of time, and for the most part I am not going to convince anyone of anything, I do enjoy commenting in public and private. And since I am not at all involved in the execution of policy, it is better that I don't know. I have no real need to know and it is always possible that I could let something slip either directly or by implication.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='02 May 2010 - 10:06 PM' timestamp='1272852380' post='2284516']
Also, despite the fact that I realize it is a total waste of time, and for the most part I am not going to convince anyone of anything, I do enjoy commenting in public and private. And since I am not at all involved in the execution of policy, it is better that I don't know. I have no real need to know and it is always possible that I could let something slip either directly or by implication.
[/quote]

Why must the terms be kept secret?

And don't give me the lame poker analogy. We aren't playing poker.

[Ninja Colt]

Has this hit 100 pages yet?

[The Big Bad]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='02 May 2010 - 09:10 PM' timestamp='1272848997' post='2284436']
You do realize you can keep repeating your talking points without them being a response to me, right? I won't call you out on it. That way we can stop pretending like you were actually responding to anything I said.

As to your comment on the universality of condemnation: so? All that tells me is that we are doing something that hasn't been done before and CN doesn't like change. It's like you base all your arguments on the notion that we are going to cave to popular opinion. It's kind of insulting, really. So far I've seen it implied that we are infra huggers and sheeple who won't stand on principle.

My recommendation: get a PR consultant and get back to me.
[/quote]

You are going to cave or disband. IRON and DAWN will not accept the terms of unconditional surrender. And you do know why they will not? Because they have the full support of popular opinion. You have no principle to stand on. You are at war because your alliance can not conduct the most basics of diplomacy on Planet Bob. In the end you will be no more or you will recind your demands and take whatever terms IRON and DAWN offer. I do not need PR, I have reality.

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='02 May 2010 - 09:06 PM' timestamp='1272852380' post='2284516']

I see no indication that IRON is going to surrender any time soon, so they really have no relevance to the current situation. We're not going to tell you what they are until you surrender.
[/quote]

With all due respect, why would they surrender? The war screens show them obliterating your lower ranks and only one member of Gramlins is countering. http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?searchstring=Declaring_Alliance%2CReceiving_Alliance&search=The%20Gr%E4mlins&anyallexact=exact

It seems a much better strategy for their upper ranks to wait in peace mode and just fight a political battle against Gramlins on the OWF.

The US was able to extract an unconditional surrender from Japan in WWII but there were two major differences, the US had atomic weapons and the Japanese did not and Japan had no ability to escape attack with peace mode. I don't see any leverage Gramlins has over IRON and company at present to force them into surrendering unconditionally.

In fact I think they now believe they can turn a loss into a win by forcing Gramlins to retract their stance by outlasting them in a political battle of attrition.

[Matt Miller]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='01 May 2010 - 11:59 AM' timestamp='1272729563' post='2282703']
IRON's only hope of victory at this point is outside intervention. And while I don't deny that that is a possibility, the point still stands that we currently have the mastery.
[/quote]
All this talk of mastery and yet most of the Gramlin nations currently burning won't fight back. They won't even fight back a little bit. No GA's, no bombing runs, no nukes, not even a little CM. Then there's the grand total of two offensive wars from you (both from the same guy). These masterful war tactics must be from the same manual used to so artfully place yourselves at the forefront of CN politics over the last month. And here I thought the only entry in the Gramlin war handbook was only enter wars where you can dogpile someone. I learn more and more everyday.

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='02 May 2010 - 10:37 PM' timestamp='1272857804' post='2284655']
With all due respect, why would they surrender? The war screens show them obliterating your lower ranks and only one member of Gramlins is countering. http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?searchstring=Declaring_Alliance%2CReceiving_Alliance&search=The%20Gr%E4mlins&anyallexact=exact

It seems a much better strategy for their upper ranks to wait in peace mode and just fight a political battle against Gramlins on the OWF.

The US was able to extract an unconditional surrender from Japan in WWII but there were two major differences, the US had atomic weapons and the Japanese did not and Japan had no ability to escape attack with peace mode. I don't see any leverage Gramlins has over IRON and company at present to force them into surrendering unconditionally.

In fact I think they now believe they can turn a loss into a win by forcing Gramlins to retract their stance by outlasting them in a political battle of attrition.
[/quote]
IC forum, you'll want to edit that.


If IRON disarms and surrenders and doesn't even get peace, what's the incentive?
Edit: Keep in mind, attacking people who have surrendered would be a war crime, and this is exactly what you are saying you will do.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Aeternos Astramora

[Matt Miller]

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='02 May 2010 - 11:45 PM' timestamp='1272858325' post='2284666']
If IRON disarms and surrenders and doesn't even get peace, what's the incentive?
[/quote]
I think the incentive is that our feelings may be spared since we won't have to endure the Gramlins spouting things such as our fear won't let us surrender. All this time I didn't know my middle finger was fearful. Then again deep down I do seek the approval on CN's very own Joseph Hazelwood so perhaps I should just bow down and kiss his ring. Oh darn, there's that finger again.

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='02 May 2010 - 10:45 PM' timestamp='1272858325' post='2284666']
IC forum, you'll want to edit that.
[/quote]

I truly appreciate the cautionary warning and you very well may be right, but since I am referring to the history of 2 in game nation flags relevant to this discussion I will let my statement stand.

[Shodemofi-NPO]

100 pages that brought Gramlins from a respected alliance to the pariah of the cyberverse. I don't believe I've seen an alliance fall so far so fast before. Usually it at least takes a couple events before everyone hates you.

[Heft]

[quote name='Ertyy' date='02 May 2010 - 09:06 PM' timestamp='1272852380' post='2284516']
I see no indication that IRON is going to surrender any time soon, so they really have no relevance to the current situation. We're not going to tell you what they are until you surrender. Maybe this is a hint that things are about to change?

Also, despite the fact that I realize it is a total waste of time, and for the most part I am not going to convince anyone of anything, I do enjoy commenting in public and private. And since I am not at all involved in the execution of policy, it is better that I don't know. I have no real need to know and it is always possible that I could let something slip either directly or by implication.
[/quote]
See this whole "They must surrender before we offer terms" bit doesn't make any sense. It's only a surrender in any meaningful way if they agree to the terms. You're either asking them to say "We surrender" with the caveat that once they see the terms they can rescind that surrender (which is dumb) or you're asking them to blindly accept terms prior to seeing them (which is dumber).

This whole fiasco has gone beyond inappropriate and into the realm of pure inanity. It's difficult to muster the proper outrage because of how incredibly baffling and irrational Gramlins behavior is.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Heft' date='03 May 2010 - 01:19 AM' timestamp='1272863976' post='2284773']
This whole fiasco has gone beyond inappropriate and into the realm of pure inanity. It's difficult to muster the proper outrage because of how incredibly baffling and irrational Gramlins behavior is.
[/quote]

I second that, we need a category beyond "Weapons Grade Stupid".

[Ordinator]

[quote]IC forum, you'll want to edit that.[/quote]If someone breaks a rule report it. Don't tell them to change their post.

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='03 May 2010 - 12:22 AM' timestamp='1272860508' post='2284710']
I truly appreciate the cautionary warning and you very well may be right, but since I am referring to the history of 2 in game nation flags relevant to this discussion I will let my statement stand.
[/quote]There is no "World War II." There was a Great War II once, but it did not involve places called "Japan" or the "United States."


Also everyone remember to stay on topic, walk with virtue, etc.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Matt Miller' date='03 May 2010 - 08:39 AM' timestamp='1272857939' post='2284656']
All this talk of mastery and yet most of the Gramlin nations currently burning won't fight back. They won't even fight back a little bit. No GA's, no bombing runs, no nukes, not even a little CM. Then there's the grand total of two offensive wars from you (both from the same guy). These masterful war tactics must be from the same manual used to so artfully place yourselves at the forefront of CN politics over the last month. And here I thought the only entry in the Gramlin war handbook was only enter wars where you can dogpile someone. I learn more and more everyday.
[/quote]

And that has become the state of so-called one of the most efficient military force in CN unfortunately, not even a shadow of what Gre was back in Karma.

Edited May 3, 2010 by shahenshah

[Stetson76]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='02 May 2010 - 06:27 PM' timestamp='1272842833' post='2284306']
When they surrender, they'll be told how to proceed to achieve peace.
You're a bit late to the thread. The issue of the "initial" terms is old hat; now everybody is up in arms about GRE demanding an unconditional surrender. Try to keep up with the reasons to hate us.
[/quote]

Now, while I appreciate being condescended to as much as the next guy, I'll just let you know that I've read every word of this tragi-comedy (Admin help me). Which is the very reason that I decided to jump into the fray. It seems that the request being made of IRON/DAWN by GRE has changed. To refresh your memory, not that I'm sure you need it as you said these things:

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 April 2010 - 03:23 PM' timestamp='1271103762' post='2257632']
Certainly after demilitarizing it may place them in a different position as the "bargaining table" if you will and it opens them up to a different risk.
But there is no reason why IRON couldn't retrain soldiers, tanks, aircraft, CM etc very quickly should they find terms unacceptable.
[/quote]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='12 April 2010 - 03:46 PM' timestamp='1271105156' post='2257666']
I want you to voluntarily weaken your position [b]so that you may be allowed a seat[/b] at the table.
[/quote]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 April 2010 - 10:49 AM' timestamp='1271173740' post='2258744']
Because it is an unacceptable moral tragedy to make a defeated enemy disarm before discussing terms...
[/quote]

And my personal favorite:

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='14 April 2010 - 12:12 PM' timestamp='1271265153' post='2260238']
'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?
[/quote]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='14 April 2010 - 11:39 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]

Speaking of consistent...


[quote name='Matthew PK' date='02 May 2010 - 05:39 PM' timestamp='1272839939' post='2284249']
Disarmament is not a condition of surrender. IRON has been asked to surrender; nothing else.
[/quote]

So, please keep telling me what I don't know and how foolish everyone else is but kindly refrain from hating me when all I am trying to do is inform IRON/DAWN that demilitarization is no longer a precondition of being "allowed a seat at the table".

Edited May 3, 2010 by Stetson

[ojiras ajeridas]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='03 May 2010 - 12:39 AM' timestamp='1272839939' post='2284249']
Disarmament is not a condition of surrender. IRON has been asked to surrender; nothing else.
[/quote]
Ehm... what??? So, what has IRON to do to surrender? Just say "We surrender"? Strange they did do that to anyone excepted Grämlins when they surrendered to C&G...

It seems that IRON is in a very tough situation... they have to surrender, but nobody knows what that surrender actually should be. They have to accept terms afterwards, but nobody knows what those terms actually should be - neither the government of RAMlins knows about those terms, because they don't care about those terms. THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR OWN TERMS! Well, now I begin to understand RAMlins a little bit... they've become insane...

I mean it's not very surprising that you don't convince anyone about this your poor strategy. The way you are thinking can't be understood, because it's just insane:

You offer terms, and when they are going to be signed you withdraw them because they weren't official - well official enough to make them signed by 30+ alliances. But... when you have to withdraw them, why did you offer them? Did you ever hear about being coherent with your own actions? Then you come up with this strange surrender thing, where nobody knows what it actually is, and obviously RAMlins do everything to make this quite misterious. Only for asking reps that will be more than reasonable because otherwise RAMlins will break their own principles. But, do RAMlins actually care about their own principles? I mean, they don't care about their own terms, why should they care about their principles?

And a last word about not caring at these terms: What happens if IRON and DAWN surrender tomorrow? You don't even have terms to offer to them. So, how can they even consider to surrender? And please don't come on with "We have, only I don't know them because I didn't ask". There might be somewhere in the government section, if they existed - a thing I seriously doubt after having read these last pages.

[Lord Rune]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='02 May 2010 - 11:39 PM' timestamp='1272839939' post='2284249']
Disarmament is not a condition of surrender. IRON has been asked to surrender; nothing else.
[/quote]


As has been said before; a policy change? But then there's no point asking you anything, because everything you say is opinion and not official policy.

[Cormalek]

LoL, I think I'll just sit back, chill, hide behind "I can't quote conversations made behind closed doors"... and enjoy. This ought to be good

[hint: don't get overexcited over Matthews post ;-) ]

[size="1"][edit: clarity is a b-word][/size]

Edited May 3, 2010 by Cormalek

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Alekhine' date='02 May 2010 - 01:06 PM' timestamp='1272819950' post='2283884']
That is correct. I do not support the continuation of the war, but I will not leave the alliance simply because I disagree with a decision the leadership has made.
[/quote]
[i]Acta non verba.[/i]

It's a good idea, you should try it sometime. Your actions matter.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]Again with the intentionally obtuse one-liners. If alliance A attacks alliance B's ally, alliance C, and B responds in kind, who is the initiator of the conflict? If this happens twice who initiated the conflict?[/quote]
In neither case did IRON attack a Grämlins ally. In Bipolar, they attacked MK, an alliance with whom [b]you cancelled your treaty[/b]. In Karma, they attacked Ragnarok, an alliance with which Grämlins has never had a treaty (ICE doesn't count), and Grämlins hit them because that was required as part of the strategic deployment of Karma. (Remember those arguments with TOP about breaking the Lux? Yeah, that's because [b]we attacked IRON[/b], not the other way around.)

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='shahenshah' date='03 May 2010 - 05:38 AM' timestamp='1272879509' post='2284886']And that has become the state of so-called one of the most efficient military force in CN unfortunately, not even a shadow of what Gre was back in Karma.[/quote]

If it's any help, there are a lot of folks out there who were never impressed by Gramlins' military efficiency. It's seeing them cut their own throats politically that has everyone stopping to view this trainwreck.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='03 May 2010 - 08:33 AM' timestamp='1272889982' post='2284930']
In neither case did IRON attack a Grämlins ally. In Bipolar, they attacked MK, an alliance with whom [b]you cancelled your treaty[/b]. In Karma, they attacked Ragnarok, an alliance with which Grämlins has never had a treaty (ICE doesn't count), and Grämlins hit them because that was required as part of the strategic deployment of Karma. (Remember those arguments with TOP about breaking the Lux? Yeah, that's because [b]we attacked IRON[/b], not the other way around.)
[/quote]

Bob, the best part of banging your head against a wall is how good it feels when you stop.

Your former alliance doesn't care what you, I or anybody else might think about this situation. They'd rather just be quiet and wait for it to go away.

I think they have a point. Through the miracle of attrition, the only Gramlins members left are those who either support their government's actions or those who do not support their government but are too cowardly to do anything. (Although I see they've lost another member in the last few minutes.)

Edited May 3, 2010 by Ashoka the Great

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='02 May 2010 - 06:37 PM' timestamp='1272850611' post='2284475']
[color="#0000FF"]Yes, Gremlins has stated several times that they can continue to pummel IRON once it has disarmed. Disarming and surrendering will not be enough to get IRON peace. That is what they have to do in order to get Gre to consider coming to the table. I am sure they'd continue the fighting for at least a week just to ensure that IRON is sufficiently wanting for peace. I mean, something must be done to satisfy Ram's ego.[/color]
[/quote]

According to everybody, there are plenty of things in thread thread for you to criticize GRE about, there's no reason for you to make things up.

Why would GRE continue to attack IRON after IRON surrenders? And where has anybody in GRE said we would?