Stonewall Jaxon

[quote name='fallin' date='21 March 2010 - 02:40 PM' timestamp='1269200387' post='2232330'] Stonewall,I don't think you should be talking bout respectability at a time when you're taking cheap potshots at Hitchhikers. I don't know what your vendetta against my alliance is but I hope you realize how ridiculous your little petty grudge is making you look. [/quote] I am not taking potshots at anyone, fallin. If you're going to respond to my posts, argue against the point I'm trying to make. If you don't feel like doing so, then don't make posts like the one above because you know as well as I do how ridiculous that is. I have nothing against the members of MHA, just MHA's policies, so you can get over yourself thinking I'd waste my time holding a "grudge" against you.

[quote name='Cormalek' date='21 March 2010 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1269191721' post='2232224'] *sigh* You just don't [i]get it[/i], do you? MHA and Grämlins are not friends because of our love to strange letters and carrying a towel around. We are friends, because we know each other. Because we know what the others are capable of. Because we share common values. We are different enough (otherwise would it would be dull), and yet similar enough. Just the right mix. One of the reasons we are friends with Grämlins is because they would never pull crazy $#&% like that. Feed us some variables that would make it possible, and I will be able to sincerely answer your question. But if Grämlins would get into a curb-stomp, and we would be anywhere lower than 10 on a WTF scale about their reasons - Yes. We would stand by them. [/quote] Very good, you're starting to understand what a treaty should be based off of. Now, apply that to your other treaties, and you'll have a respectable position in no time!

[quote name='nutkase' date='20 March 2010 - 11:42 PM' timestamp='1269146534' post='2231898'] A MDP does not apply when one party conducts a offensive war. The only treaties that would apply would be ones that contain Mandatory Aggression pacts. [/quote] I have a question for you: if the Grämlns attacked somebody, and the rest of Planet Bob jumped on them, would you stand by their side?

[quote name='nutkase' date='20 March 2010 - 11:42 PM' timestamp='1269146534' post='2231898'] A MDP does not apply when one party conducts a offensive war. The only treaties that would apply would be ones that contain Mandatory Aggression pacts. [/quote] An MDP applies whenever one alliance declares war on one of the signatories, unless a clause within the treaty creates certain conditions that nullify the defensive obligations. It's simply the terms of a contract, end of story.

[quote name='AndyDe' date='20 March 2010 - 11:37 PM' timestamp='1269146203' post='2231889'] Don't get me wrong. but I believe that FAN was spying on MHA at the time. and that is a valid CB. [/quote] But when the Karma War came along, Hegemonic actions, up until then supported by "hoopdy froods," became unacceptable? Please

[quote name='fallin' date='20 March 2010 - 11:21 PM' timestamp='1269145243' post='2231872'] I hope you realize that we have 16 pages worth of argument because you weren't wearing your reading glasses. [/quote] Not at all. I entered originally to point out your history as the worst allies in CN, and I entered because of your member's ridiculous comment on page 15. Also, I added this to the post you quoted: [quote]And here, fallin, is the great protector of the coward. Had someone declared war on TOP from a trumped-up CB and gained numerical advantage, you would have supported the action because their fabricated "CB" would have voided all of your treaty obligations, in your eyes. Thankfully, TOP saved you that trouble and preemptively started the war. Either way, MHA will never lose its numerical advantage. In all honestly, where were these convenient morals when you ere fighting GATO, or FAN? [/quote]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='20 March 2010 - 11:10 PM' timestamp='1269144610' post='2231862'] Forgetting for a moment that MHA and Sparta are allies, the Harmless Paradox Treaty did in fact have "non-chaining" clauses and the like. [/quote] Yes, I realize that now; I was simply going off of the arguments of MHA members here, which is essentially that an MDP does not apply when a "CB" isn't valid. [quote]why on earth would we shelter TOP from the consequences of their actions? [/quote] And here, fallin, is the great protector of the coward. Had someone declared war on TOP from a trumped-up CB and gained numerical advantage, you would have supported the action because their fabricated "CB" would have voided all of your treaty obligations, in your eyes. Thankfully, TOP saved you that trouble and preemptively started the war. Either way, MHA will never lose its numerical advantage. In all honestly, where were these convenient morals when you ere fighting GATO, or FAN?

[quote name='fallin' date='20 March 2010 - 11:02 PM' timestamp='1269144121' post='2231849'] One would argue that supporting the attack on C&G would be no less dishonourable. Would you prefer that? That MHA supported a sudden and unprovoked attack on an entire bloc? Of course you would. We're only "horribly cowardly and dishonest" when we're fighting on the other side. [/quote] I didn't expressly pledge unconditional military support to TOP whenever war was declared on them, you did. If you did not have the intention of upholding your word in the first place, why not state that in the treaty? [quote]I like how you conveniently ignore that this war started with a TOP/IRON DoW on C&G. [/quote] My apologies; I did not see the 2.3 clause in the TOP treaty. I'm glad MHA included the clause this time; such clauses were missing in the Karma War.

[quote name='Choader' date='20 March 2010 - 11:03 PM' timestamp='1269144173' post='2231852'] Since when is TOP in a defensive war? [/quote] [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79717"]http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79717[/url] If I'm not mistaken, didn't the treaty state that a declaration on one alliance is considered a declaration on both? If MHA had conditions that would cause them to consider the treaty null and void, they should have mentioned those conditions. In the modern era, many alliances include "non-chaining" clauses to make their contracts accurate and honest.

[quote name='nutkase' date='20 March 2010 - 10:45 PM' timestamp='1269143127' post='2231836'] Well in a MDAP maybe, but I don't see how in a MDoAP. Feel free to elaborate if you like. [/quote] You're not giving away your sovereignty, but you are contractually agreeing to being drawn into an ally's defensive war whether you like it or not. Of course, this differs from a direct loss of sovereignty because, technically speaking, you still [b]can[/b] simply refuse to honor the treaty and your word, committing a horribly cowardly and dishonest act, also known as "pulling an MHA."

[quote name='nutkase' date='20 March 2010 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1269140212' post='2231786'] Really, are you serious??? Your saying that MHA should be mindless meat shields, defend aggressive action without cause and let others dictate when we go to war? [/quote] You really are ridiculous. When you sign a treaty with an alliance and vow to protect them in a war, you are personally signing a contract, and unless you place no conditions on the contract, no such conditions exist, and to later invent conditions in an attempt to nullify the treaty makes your prior signature an outright lie, and your actions are completely cowardly. In fact, by pledging your military support to another alliance when war is declared on them, you are letting another alliance dictate when you go to war. Don't act as if that's somehow a surprise to you. When you sign with an alliance, you're not signing to defend only their justifiable or, in your case, beneficial military actions. In your case, you've blatantly ignored treaties and/or considered them null and void because their actions were not beneficial to you, which makes you liars because you're violating a contract which bears your name. There's no escaping it. [img]http://hcliberal.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/you-lie-2-2.jpg[/img] Perhaps your next treaty's cancellation clause should read "This treaty may be cancelled retroactively should MHA consider upholding its treaty obligations no longer pursuant to its benefit and/or 'beliefs.'" Edit: Sorry for the brevity of this post. The quoted post is so fundamentally wrong, I could write a book of material. It's just horrible to think that such thought is considered acceptable in [i]any[/i] portion of this universe.

[quote name='Il Principe' date='20 March 2010 - 09:10 PM' timestamp='1269137404' post='2231755'] Since they attacked and we did not/could not agree with their CB, the treaty did not apply to this situation. [/quote] Unless your treaties have a "treaty only applies when we agree with your 'CB'" clause built into them, this is pure cowardice.

You didn't roll us. As the aggressors, we "got a piece of you."

[quote name='Working_Class_Ruler' date='19 March 2010 - 11:54 PM' timestamp='1269060856' post='2230999'] There simply no words to reply to such a ridiculous argument. Worst allies to disgrace Planet Bob? What a joke. [/quote] There's an old saying in The Free Confederacy, "With allies like MHA, who needs enemies?"

Who says we went in with the intent of winning? Maybe we just felt like our personal sense of honor would not allow us to make meaningless threats? Or maybe we just felt like knocking out some of your precious infrastructure and watching you moan and bawwww. Either way, it's still fun to watch you.

[quote name='Working_Class_Ruler' date='19 March 2010 - 11:28 PM' timestamp='1269059315' post='2230970'] Again, simply no resonance. What we did in the past had reason and discussion - as evidence by the fact that it is still debatable today. [/quote] Wait, the fact that it's openly mockable and still being repeated today makes your historical pattern of putting infrastructure over your word somehow honorable? You'll have to explain that to me. The fact remains your history has shown you sign treaties without the intent of living up to your word when the going gets tough, and you cannot claim that is only your past because this topic only provides a modern example. Ad hominem me all you want; it doesn't change the fact that a treaty with MHA is nothing but a meaningless piece of text, making you one of the worst allies to ever disgrace Planet Bob.

Let that be a lesson to you: NSO does not make empty threats

[quote name='Working_Class_Ruler' date='19 March 2010 - 11:09 PM' timestamp='1269058139' post='2230947'] Because you are the last person who should be commenting on loyalty, allegiances, or those who slithered out from the protection of others when it became convenient. I may not be long for this world, but you will always be a traitor. So please don't think your comments will have any resonance here. [/quote] So, the fact that I spied on you makes changing allegiances for the sake of protection acceptable? My allegiance to MHA was false and purely for the sake of combating y foes; yours is legitimate until it is no longer beneficial. there is a difference between a traitor and a coward, WCR, and to me you'll always be a coward.

You bragged about your "political maneuvering," not me. To say your line from this thread is a "standardized NSO one-liner" is as hilarious as it is outrageous. I mean, when I'm quoting you on it, how can you possibly attribute it to us?

[quote]It also serves to prove the point that these so-called allies have no idea who we are, and expect us to willing act as a meatshield for their wars. We are mostly Harmless - we put diplomacy before war, peace above all else, and we do not start or support aggressively initiated global wars based on flimsy or nonexistent evidence. So I find it laughable that an ally would try to do something we are vehemently against and cry when we don't support it. And if those allies had any sense of decency, they would take responsibility for their own actions instead of complaining about the consequences. [/quote] This is a favorite of mine; the idea that those who ran from NPO before the Karma War did so because of some sort of moral objection to NPO's policies. Isn't it funny that such "aggressive moves" only become objectionable to you right before the aggressive actions of your protectors comes back to bite them? You were perfectly content to prosper in Continuum, who were far from "Mostly Harmless," yet right when you caught wind of the war, you bolted from beneath NPO's umbrella of protection and right beneath Karma's protections, like a snake slithering from beneath one rock to another whenever the rock is lifted. As to my loyalty, my excursion into MHA is the most regrettable point in my career because it was the first and only period during which I expressed one loyalty while holding another. I left because I was fed up with it, and I never intend to dishonor myself in such a way again. However, I don't see what bearing that has on this discussion, WCR.

[quote name='nutkase' date='19 March 2010 - 09:22 PM' timestamp='1269051742' post='2230838'] Yes we love our Infrastructure so much we decided to enter the war and fight against IRON, NADC, MCXA, GGA, Echelon and TUF. [/quote] Oh I'm sorry; I didn't realize what horrible odds you've faced! [quote]Date of karma war start: April 20 We announced leaving Q: 20th of April 2009[/quote] "Don't shoot until we can get out of the way!" MHA, you've got to be the best allies of all time!

This is by far my favorite argument of yours, Penkala, that you have some sort of bragging rights because we were on IRON's side of the war. First of all, if we had cared to cause ore damage to CSN we well could have, but rather we decided to focus our efforts ore on Fark to better assist our embattled allies. Besides, your effect on us in the war was so close to zero it makes me chuckle to see you post your chest out just because SuperFriends are there to fight your battles for you. Second of all, the fact that you consider your politics to be "maneuvering" just shows how true of a yellow-bellied cowardly bandwagoner you truly are. You think we couldn't have "maneuvered" to save our infrastructure? Hell, we could've pulled out the old "An MDP shouldn't defend an aggressive war" thing (which alliances on any side of any war can use), or claim some sort of protection due to our treaties' non-chaining clauses, but we're not you, Penkala. You "maneuver," we fight. So please, continue to act as if our loss of infrastructure, which is more significant to you than to us, makes you somehow superior, for the only regrettable thing to us is that we'll ever see you leading a charge onto the battlefield against us, but rather wait for your masters to do all the dirty work for you.

[quote name='Queen Hoopdy the 1st' date='19 March 2010 - 05:58 PM' timestamp='1269039491' post='2230621'] Dear TOP, You want us to make a choice? Ok. We like [b]our infrastructure[/b] better, and Fark's infrastructure is safer. Kthxbye, Me [/quote] Fixed for correctness.

That's a tough argument to make when we were at war before TOP or IRON. Also, with our allies being aggressively gangbanged, it's just an easy choice to make to defend them. Perhaps you'll find that out some day, but I doubt it. You're cowardly enough you'll never fight without numbers behind you (See: NSO vs. CSN 1v1) The only real instance of bandwagoning you can say NSO participated in is the Karma War. NSO butchered RAD on its own, and we didn't even call in the help squad for that, like you doubtlessly would have, seeing as you needed to call in all the help you could get in the Cluster$%&@ War

Ruler Name: Stonewall Jaxon Nation Link: [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=260370"][/url] Resources: Cattle, Marble Circle Interested in: 5. I'll take anywhere I'll fit, but I'd really like to have uranium