An MHAmendment.

[Doc Taco]

I appreciate all the props MHA has gotten in this thread, and i also understand people's dismay/confusion.

Mutual Defense and Optional Aggression treaties are called that for a reason. MHA had the option of joining in the repurcussions of NPO adventurism against OV. MHA, having the option, chose not to join in. There is, however, no little o before the big D part of our MDoAP. For better or for worse we decided to sign a treaty with a one-year cancellation clause, and we are abiding by the results of that decision.

[SeraphimJulius]

Let me clarify

Say alliance A has no treaties with alliance B, but just make up a "treaty" so both can fight together. How would you deal with that? Or how about people who have "secret" treaties?

I mean this whole "defending" your allies thing makes no sense. You should of defended them when this whole thing started so we didn't have to clarify who is who isn't part of this war.

[Kowalski]

Haha, this is awesome, MHA for lyfe yo!

No, seriously, avoid going to war with the big dogs because you're too afraid to lose some NS or something. But then fight the "bandwagoners" to "uphold" your treaty. I'd call you classy, but I think the sarcasm would be lost.

Ahem, which big dogs are you referring to exactly?

[Ttaagg]

Ahem, which big dogs are you referring to exactly?

Better question: are there bandwagoners in the war already? (In reference to "big dogs" I meant simply the entire other side of the war, as I can't think of a large alliance that is bandwagoning, though I could be wrong.)

[drugsup]

So i assume you will only be attacking alliances that illegally enter this war or do not have a legitimate CB?

[Kowalski]

Better question: are there bandwagoners in the war already? (In reference to "big dogs" I meant simply the entire other side of the war, as I can't think of a large alliance that is bandwagoning, though I could be wrong.)

Potentially, but nothing major.

It's worth remembering (or actually reading in the first place) that our decision not to stand alongside NPO has nothing to do with avoiding the big dogs (lol) but to do with a breakdown in the relationship between NPO and MHA over the circumstances leading to this war. We will not support them or anyone else who supports this war, but if anyone thinks this is an easy time to declare on NPO because of an old grudge or wants to kick them while they're down to make themselves fell better then feel free to try.

[Kowalski]

So i assume you will only be attacking alliances that illegally enter this war or do not have a legitimate CB?

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54845

[Rajistani]

Let me clarify

Say alliance A has no treaties with alliance B, but just make up a "treaty" so both can fight together. How would you deal with that? Or how about people who have "secret" treaties?

I mean this whole "defending" your allies thing makes no sense. You should of defended them when this whole thing started so we didn't have to clarify who is who isn't part of this war.

Good point, but from the wording I believe MHA will be taking this on a case by case basis. Clarify me if I am wrong MHA.

[pigsticker]

We will never be able to get it right in the eyes of everyone. What's most important is that we know we have done what we could and should. That's enough for us.

Cheers

[Syzygy]

Wise words as always DAC. But what about all these other alliances that were involved in the "peace talks." Quite a few are allied to MHA, will MHA drop those treaties ? (Not a troll, just wondering..)

Pseudo-Edit: This is assuming they DO drop NPOs treaty post-war because of what you stated.

Only fighting parties (and a mediator maybe) should talk during the negotiation of peace terms. if there were others, who are not involved in the current conflict, maybe some people just wanted to inflate their egos without having anything to say. as usual, the people who talk the most are also the most insignificant ones. Don't give much on their words. I don't even know who was there and who demanded what.

When it comes to the pseudo edit (^^), that is up to MHA alone and I can imagine they will at least have a discussion about that violation with the NPO Government after this conflict. A decision will depend on the level of mutual trust that is left. But I am sure MHA is able to handle that professionally, like they always have in the past. They are Härmlins too, for a good reason.

Edited April 22, 2009 by (DAC)Syzygy

[Doc Taco]

What a great many people are missing here is that this statement is all about treaties chaining. Defensive wars involving NPO which arose from their offensive war against OV are lumped together into one conflict in our eyes. That conflict started with NPO's offensive war, which, as was our option, we chose not to partake mutually in. But that did not negate our treaty, which many of you will not let us forget has a 1 year expiration clause. So in keeping with our treatty, we will come to the aid of NPO in regards to any who attack it, the same as we would in any other time, except where those attacks arise from the OV crisis (i.e. NPO's defensive war). This is not the MHA weaseling out of anything. If you want to look for weasels look elsewhere, perhaps in the direction of 1V.

Personally, I think that this approach to non-chaining treaties is refreshing, and I hail our Gre brothers for reminding us in their codex that this is how treaties in CN were originally meant to be interpreted.

[Yubyubsan]

Well, at least we all know how MHA would have rolled if all those Q-Cit rumors had come to fruition.

[white majik]

Nice to see this MHA its always good to see you take a stand

[Cooldude247]

Very honorable MHA

[Demosthenes Locke]

So let me see if I got this right...

You're not fighting alongside NPO in this war.

However, anyone who bandwagons onto NPO's destruction for the lulz will be attacked by MHA.

Correct?

[Kowalski]

So let me see if I got this right...

You're not fighting alongside NPO in this war.

However, anyone who bandwagons onto NPO's destruction for the lulz will be attacked by MHA.

Correct?

Pretty much, although if it does happen consultation with that alliance and the opportunity to withdraw would be given first.

[Logan]

Hey guys, remember me? Miss you

Anyways I feel incredibly sympathetic to the MHA involving this conflict. They didn't like the CB or anything about how this war went down. But they have treaty obligations. Being an ex-member I have a grasp of what is going through their heads right now, and let me tell every ruler on this planet right now, its not that easy. They have strong ties on both sides, of not just treaties but of genuine friendships. They knew damn well that because of their situation, no matter what course of action they chose, it would somehow be seen as the wrong one.

Now that said I can't exactly agree with what MHA is doing here. Picking and choosing who they fight depending on how they are tied to the web isn't something that should be labeled 'honorable.' But I'm not going to be the one pretending to be self righteous and tell them that they are ignoring their treaties, because the fact is they can't uphold all of them.

To conclude my statement, good luck MHA. I know that you guys are hating this because there isn't any possible way for you to take a path that you feel totally comfortable with. But you guys are trying, and I see that and many other people do too.

Edit: forgot a couple words.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Logan

[hobbies0310]

O/ MHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Glad to see someone will kill the bandwagoners. I wish someone would kill the betrayers that canceled there treaties tho

[Rajistani]

Here goes another one for you Crush/WCR.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54921

[Il Principe]

This is what happens when you treaty every alliance in the game. Poor showing, mha. What is one of your treaties worth? Not much, in my estimation. You should have dropped NPO back when you last signed with Gramlins.

We do not tend to drop treaties with alliances that we consider friends and that have helped us a lot in the past.

Seeing this course of action reminds me why I joined this alliance. This is the wisest and most honourable course we could take in this difficult situation.

MHAil! our alliances leaders

we really vote for the best.

[Azrael Alexander]

Hey guys, remember me? Miss you

Anyways I feel incredibly sympathetic to the MHA involving this conflict. They didn't like the CB or anything about how this war went down. But they have treaty obligations. Being an ex-member I have a grasp of what is going through their heads right now, and let me tell every ruler on this planet right now, its not that easy. They have strong ties on both sides, of not just treaties but of genuine friendships. They knew damn well that because of their situation, no matter what course of action they chose, it would somehow be seen as the wrong one.

Now that said I can't exactly agree with what MHA is doing here. Picking and choosing who they fight depending on how they are tied to the web isn't something that should be labeled 'honorable.' But I'm not going to be the one pretending to be self righteous and tell them that they are ignoring their treaties, because the fact is they can't uphold all of them.

To conclude my statement, good luck MHA. I know that you guys are hating this because there isn't any possible way for you to take a path that you feel totally comfortable with. But you guys are trying, and I see that and many other people do too.

Edit: forgot a couple words.

I have a long memory, and i wish i got to know you better. You still best buds with JR? And stretching my memory but did you not once ask the senators for permission to tech raid you naughty boy

You said it extremely well, unfortunate an alliance has to end up in the middle. And we have been trying to for god know how long to keep the web from splitting efforts that until now have been successful. We will do what we must, pacifica will hopefully have learned a lesson from this and our relationship be stronger. MHA too has learned a valuable lesson and hopefully you will see smaller MDP web for the MHA.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Shamshir

[Logan]

I have a long memory, and i wish i got to know you better. You still best buds with JR? And stretching my memory but did you not once ask the senators for permission to tech raid you naughty boy

You said it extremely well, unfortunate an alliance has to end up in the middle. And we have been trying to for god know how long to keep the web from splitting efforts that until now have been successful. We will do what we must, pacifica will hopefully have learned a lesson from this and our relationship be stronger. MHA too has learned a valuable lesson and hopefully you will see smaller MDP web for the MHA.

Yup that's me. Haven't spoken to JR much besides the standard "What up?" in Polar's embassy. And yeah I sparked a lot of conversation in MHA in my short stay there. Some of which probably gave the senators massive migraines.

And to be completely honest Shamshir, many of the alliances on the Karma side of this war were in your very same position months, weeks, and even until days ago. Some alliances had just gotten lucky, realized their political problem, and took steps to avoid this kind of disaster. Unfortunately you guys didn't have that opportunity. Just keep in mind that "This too shall pass," and just do what you guys think is right in your gut.

As I learned in OR in the last big war, you may not always have the option of fighting for what you truly believe in. But you should always fight for your word.

[Azrael Alexander]

Yup that's me. Haven't spoken to JR much besides the standard "What up?" in Polar's embassy. And yeah I sparked a lot of conversation in MHA in my short stay there. Some of which probably gave the senators massive migraines.

And to be completely honest Shamshir, many of the alliances on the Karma side of this war were in your very same position months, weeks, and even until days ago. Some alliances had just gotten lucky, realized their political problem, and took steps to avoid this kind of disaster. Unfortunately you guys didn't have that opportunity. Just keep in mind that "This too shall pass," and just do what you guys think is right in your gut.

As I learned in OR in the last big war, you may not always have the option of fighting for what you truly believe in. But you should always fight for your word.

I completely agree with you. I think it was a case of us foolishly thinking we could straddle and hold the sides together.

[Doc Taco]

I completely agree with you. I think it was a case of us foolishly thinking we could straddle and hold the sides together.

Not sure if I disagree it was foolish. Maybe I am being egotistical here, but I seriously think it was MHA's (and TOP's, to be fair) position in the center of the treaty web which kept the peace for as long as it lasted. If not for our link between the NPO and the Gre/SF/etc. things might have gotten uglier much sooner.

[Azrael Alexander]

Not sure if I disagree it was foolish. Maybe I am being egotistical here, but I seriously think it was MHA's (and TOP's, to be fair) position in the center of the treaty web which kept the peace for as long as it lasted. If not for our link between the NPO and the Gre/SF/etc. things might have gotten uglier much sooner.

Well we knew it was coming and we tried to keep the peace as long as we could. I think that and not allowing ourselves enough time to disentangle ourselves and get out the middle was a bit short-sighted. But i see what your saying.