Kroknia Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Choosing which treaties to follow and which ones to ignore? Heh. Sounds like something the NPO does when they're in a bind. UJW maybe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jer Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Ah, so disregarding treaties is now classy. Gotcha. Your tears are so delicious. Am I doin it rite? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavii Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 An epic announcement from one of the best alliances out there.Indeed Xavii. MHA and this announcement are tight. Yes, MHA knows how to play it tight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 MHAil! You guy are awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirDelirium Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Picking and choosing treaties to honor. Thats not how they work... Still, you are on the right side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deruvian Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Choosing which treaties to follow and which ones to ignore? Heh. I'm pretty sure that, if you go to war, you have make sure all your allies support you and the war. You don't sign treaties to gain blind followers. That aside... I you MHA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detlev Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 MHA I always said that you signed too many treaties and I think that this situation is proof of that. Regardless, I congratulate you on choosing the righteous course. MHA has always had high quality leadership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ty649608 Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 o/ MHA BRILLIANT POLITICAL MOVE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 No, on the contrary. It a Mutual Defence Pact based on mutual interests with a mutual consensus on what is just and right. To wit, the MHA feels that as to the rationale of launching of this war - to use a cliche - was not mutual.Cowardice is standing idly as wrongs are perpetuated in your name. Cowardice is being helplessness as innocents burn before you with their cries for mercy going unheard. We are the Mostly Harmless Alliance. We are not the Mostly Cowardice alliance. Well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakyr Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 As many have said before me, nice to have your stance clarified. Honourable stance, putting your ideals and chartered policies first, above all. o/ MHA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bralor Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Classy as always MHA. Classy as always. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuterium Dawn Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 So if you're not going to honor the treaty, why keep it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Choosing which treaties to follow and which ones to ignore? Heh. I would give you a counterexample of you (NPO) committing a similar act but I'm guessing MHA doesn't want their thread turn into a flame war so I bow out good sir. Classy as always MHA. No shame is disregarding technicalities for your ethics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oinkoink12 Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 No, on the contrary. It a Mutual Defence Pact based on mutual interests with a mutual consensus on what is just and right. To wit, the MHA feels that as to the rationale of launching of this war - to use a cliche - was not mutual.Cowardice is standing idly as wrongs are perpetuated in your name. Cowardice is being helplessness as innocents burn before you with their cries for mercy going unheard. We are the Mostly Harmless Alliance. We are not the Mostly Cowardice alliance. Maybe you should have written that in the treaty. Or maybe 1 year cancellation was just a bit too long? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jtkode Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 o/ MHA this is the way to go!!! Way to stay true to CN! w00t this is going to be fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stumpy Jung Il Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 What part about Harmlins basically being a merger did all you whiners not understand? You pushed Gramlins by starting a war that would inevitably pull them in. By doing so, you targeted MHA with the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurney Halleck Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 These are interesting times we are living in. I know that this was a tough decision, MHA. In the end you must - we all must - do as our conscience dictates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbrownso Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 IMO, good move by MHA. The problem with treaties is that too many people were tied to each other and you end up with obligations on both sides of the fence...which doesn't work. Somebody's gotta lose out. Maybe if nothing else, this war will force all the major players to re-evaluate what it means to sign a treaty and we'll see less of them. Technically, then precedent holds that alliance with conflicting treaties does not participate as to not go against it's treaties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Aldarich Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Awsome announcement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Destruction Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Thank you for using the megaphone to let us know you're not honoring our treaty, Sorum. Quite simply this. I did not know the "Order at the End of the Universe" Treaty had an optional defense clause. Even after reading it, and seeing this: A. In the event that one of us comes under attack, the other shall provide all possible assistance. An attack on one shall be considered an attack on the other. Assistance is defined as military, economic, intelligence, diplomatic, and all other forms of aid possible to provide. In the event this clause conflicts with other agreements, each of us agrees that, except for the Mobius Accords, this agreement shall take precedence. I still read it as you defending us if we were attacked. It seems you do not live up to your word, MHA. I'm disappointed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epik High Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 So are these treaties being canceled or ignored for the time being? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mathews Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 As a member of the MHA govt I am glad that we come to this, We would like to remind people were only Mostly Harmless, not totally harmless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o ya baby Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 It's great to hear that the MHA takes its agreements seriously. This announcement really makes me all giddy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquisitor Tolkien Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Choosing which treaties to follow and which ones to ignore? Heh. So very much like the OoO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proko Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 (edited) Regardless of the outcome of this war, given the nature of this treaty and the sides on which you and the New Pacific Order are likely to fight (based on the list of treaties you listed), will it still be valid after the war? Edited April 22, 2009 by Proko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.