jer Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Tears? Heh. Try jackboots. And they are not delicious, I assure you. Party like it's 2008. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejarue Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 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. You canceled the treaty after they were at war? Good job. CSN did that one time. Of course, since the treaty was already activated, we still went to war... but what you guys did... that's close enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquisitor Tolkien Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 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 Personally, I completely agree on the cancellation clause. I would never sign a treaty with a cancellation time of greater then 72 hours (more if we were extremely close). However, I don't think this is surprising. Hence my reference to the OoO, Lord of Destruction, which was technically suppose to be uncancellable. This pact will be in effect immediately and unto perpetuity. You can't cancel it as per the OoO itself: yet Moo still did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neuromancer7 Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 They're Mostly Harmless... How could they Possibly forget their towels? And, of course, their friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar833 Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 This is weak MHA. Im pretty sure the reasons have been stated many times in the pages before me i just chose not to read them. I read the OP and its pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Destruction Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 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. If they had actually said that in the OP, I wouldn't be arguing in this thread at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R.K. TriggerHappy Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 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. I think I see a loop hole. "Will provide all POSSIBLE assistance." Sometimes, some things just aren't possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbrownso Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 This is indeed possible, I don't consider it likely though.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. Those sentences speak of two different things. The first sentence is correct. However, saying that repercussions of an aggressive war aren't defensive is foolish and flies in the face of Planet Bob custom. But hey, whatever makes you feel better about turning your back on your rightful obligations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentkiller Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 neutrality ftw? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnathan Flaherty Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 o/ MHA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Edward Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 364 days 23 hours 33 minutes and some seconds until this Treaty is actually canceled then i take it. Or do you plan to ignore it and then attempt to keep it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy 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. And thank you for using that very same megaphone to tell us where Zenith stands! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 I've got to say, this really bugs me, much as I appreciate the direction MHA is taking. You helped prop up NPO's regime all this time. Are their actions against OV really that surprising or out of character*? This goes not just for MHA, but plenty of others who now suddenly want to see NPO burn after over a year of preventing anyone else from taking action against it. *I don't mean that in the OOC sense Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Destruction Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Cry about it. You did the same thing to GOONS. I don't remember being a member of the New Pacific Order then. Maybe you should check your facts. I had nothing to do with that. Hence my reference to the OoO, Lord of Destruction, which was technically suppose to be uncancellable.You can't cancel it as per the OoO itself: yet Moo still did. Oh. Okay, then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingEater Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 (edited) 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.I think I see a loop hole. "Will provide all POSSIBLE assistance." Sometimes, some things just aren't possible. Did anyone seriously think Harmlins wouldn't be on the same side? I'm just surprised the way MHA did it, thought for sure that they would wait for NPO to attack Gremlins then they have just cause to defend...well themselves basically. Edited April 22, 2009 by WingEater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongrel Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Doin it rite! MHAIL o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 It's great to hear that the MHA takes its agreements seriously. The irony is rich in this post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reptyler Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 MHA: How does it feel to be a swing state, so to speak? NPO: How does it feel to lose yet another meat shield? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejarue Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Those sentences speak of two different things. The first sentence is correct. However, saying that repercussions of an aggressive war aren't defensive is foolish and flies in the face of Planet Bob custom. But hey, whatever makes you feel better about turning your back on your rightful obligations. What? No it doesn't. Treaties don't chain by Planet Bob custom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Scream Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 No, actually. It has nothing like that at all. 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. Yes, that's true. You got a valid point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquisitor Tolkien Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 The irony is rich in this post. The past few days have been nothing if not ironic. Ironic, don't you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Froggor Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Good to see this MHA. A very good choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 The Mostly Harmless Alliance would like to announce that due to recent events, we must clarify our Defensive obligations. We'd like to make it clear to all of Planet Bob that as a mostly peaceful alliance, MHA supports peace over war, honor over convenience, diplomacy over conflict, and defense over aggression. MHA does not support the war initiated by the New Pacific Order and The Order of Righteous Nations. We made our position clear to them regarding the possible implications of war, and our general dissatisfaction with the whole mess. We said it then, we're saying it again. MHA is choosing to do what is right, and it is choosing to not support the actions taken on behalf of those treaty partners. We will not be activating the Aggression portions of the those treaties, nor shall the Defense portions of those treaties be activated. To do so would be to support actions that are fundamentally against the MHA's way of life and our Chartered policies. In addition, any MHA Defense partner who does support their actions will similarly be unable to Activate their Defense treaties with the MHA. We understand that you have obligations as well, and as sovereign alliances the decision is entirely yours, but we hope that you do what is fundamentally right. We also cannot allow those treaties to prevent our other Defense partners from defending their allies against those who support this action. 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 Härmlin Accords - The Trident - Sparta MDoAP - FOK! MDoAP - TOP MDoAP - TAB MDoAP - ROK MDP - Umbrella MDP - EPIC Protectorate Bloc and all Protectorate treaties Cheers, The MHA Dishonorable, MHA... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Destruction Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 I think I see a loop hole. "Will provide all POSSIBLE assistance." Sometimes, some things just aren't possible. You see no loophole. It is saying if their nations are not able to attack then they will send aid to ours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Impetus Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Hail to our friends at MHA for following the right course of action! 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.