Jump to content

A clarification of MHA obligations.


Sorum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 262
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Choosing which treaties to follow and which ones to ignore? Heh.

I remember that time NPO ignored the "Lets be drinking buddies pact" and cancelled it after GOONS was at war. You know, the time NPO betrayed GOONS?

NPO has no right to lecture about honor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In order to resolve any possible treaty conflicts, therefore, those who support the NPO/TORN war will not be defended by the MHA.
As we are already informed of the positions of the following partners, these treaties will be fully activated should any alliance declare war upon them:

- The Trident

These two quotes are direct contradictions. As soon as NPO is attacked, NATO is obligated to come to their defense. If you intend to fully activate Trident, you'd have to declare war alongside NATO... in defence of NPO and their war.

The only solution I can see is Fark and MHA intend to eject NATO from Trident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These two quotes are direct contradictions. As soon as NPO is attacked, NATO is obligated to come to their defense. If you intend to fully activate Trident, you'd have to declare war alongside NATO... in defence of NPO and their war.

The only solution I can see is Fark and MHA intend to eject NATO from Trident.

Or NATO isn't stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Standing up for what you believe in is great. Props for that. But when you signed a treaty with a year-long cancellation clause, did it not once cross your mind that you might find yourselves in a situation where it might need to be canceled in, you know, a reasonable timeframe? When you sign your name to something, be prepared to follow through. If you're not prepared to follow through, don't sign your name. If you sign your name and don't follow through, your oath and name are worth nothing.

-Bama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These two quotes are direct contradictions. As soon as NPO is attacked, NATO is obligated to come to their defense. If you intend to fully activate Trident, you'd have to declare war alongside NATO... in defence of NPO and their war.

The only solution I can see is Fark and MHA intend to eject NATO from Trident.

Or they could just ignore the part about NATO being in Trident like they are going to ignore our treaty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how it's classy or honorable to decide that because you disagree with what they did you won't honor your obligations. Now if you argue that due to them launching the war in the first place any retaliation is inherently defensive or something that's one thing, but to simply say "we think you're wrong, so we're just not going to activate our treaties" is weird at best. You can't "activate" a treaty like that.

Also, I've been very much looking forward to the announcement kicking off the one-year cancelation period. Don't let me down, now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's liking choosing other alliances to do your diplomacy. :awesome:

No, actually. It has nothing like that at all. :mellow:

I remember that time NPO ignored the "Lets be drinking buddies pact" and cancelled it after GOONS was at war. You know, the time NPO betrayed GOONS?

NPO has no right to lecture about honor.

Well if MHA's justification for this is basically summed up as ''No U!'', may I point out that we had the decency to at least cancel the treaty. MHA simply disregards it at its choosing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Standing up for what you believe in is great. Props for that. But when you signed a treaty with a year-long cancellation clause, did it not once cross your mind that you might find yourselves in a situation where it might need to be canceled in, you know, a reasonable timeframe? When you sign your name to something, be prepared to follow through. If you're not prepared to follow through, don't sign your name. If you sign your name and don't follow through, your oath and name are worth nothing.

-Bama

Poor show MHA

Edited by topgun0820
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or NATO isn't stupid.

This is indeed possible, I don't consider it likely though.

Or they could just ignore the part about NATO being in Trident like they are going to ignore our treaty.

Your war against Ordo Verde was an aggressive war. The aggression part of your treaty is optional. All repercussions of your aggressive war are not defensive wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...