Jump to content

Foreign Affairs Dispatch from the New Pacific Order.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ah, and after everything RIA went through to defend you guys in this war.

I guess even the strongest of bonds between the most trustworthy of allies can be broken.

Shush. You gonna make me agree with an NSO member, we dont want that to happen now do we.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely such a treaty would never be signed except with the utmost of commitment, and would never be canceled by either party, which was why the cancelation period was put in as just a joke.

Sparta had a multiple decade cancellation period with RIA. What a mistake that was. Now we're stuck with those &#33;@#&#036;%cakes for another 30 some-odd years <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sparta had a multiple decade cancellation period with RIA. What a mistake that was. Now we're stuck with those &#33;@#&#036;%cakes for another 30 some-odd years <_<

Hey, you've still got 47 and a half years left on that baby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it is a major shake up. But I so far have been very very pleased with the results. A lot of people were upset when we signed the MK treaty, its a heck of a lot easier to make decisions when theres a big long thread of public opinion to guide you. They aren't polls, or binding, their just opinions, but they've been a great help to making policy decisions. For instance, we were all gung ho on some red unity efforts, until the BR said overwhelmingly that they wanted to take it slow. It turned out to probably be a better decision.

So tell me, how much rejoicing was there when we cancelled it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So tell me, how much rejoicing was there when we cancelled it?

and there was much rejoicing :P

Seriously though, how many 'shrooms were against you cancelling it?

Probably about the same number of Pacificans who were upset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They do not have a choice. They are getting annihilated over there, and the last thing Pacifica needs is a mass defection.

Whatever the reason for it happening, its a good thing. Everyone can see now that the true power of NPO is indeed the BR and the loyalty. Yes, they lost quite a few members but I would say most of those didn't spend much time actually getting involved with the NPO forum culture.

May NPO leadership never again take the BR for granted. They are the NPO.

I have to say though, it is quite a step forward if NPO is consulting the BR on it's FA now.

It is a huge step forward.

They could just be waiting for the cancellation period to expire before announcing.

Had a few good laughs over this. Have wondered about this myself as well as MHA certainly seems like a different alliance these days. Lots of facepalms all around when the topic of that treaty comes up I am sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They could just be waiting for the cancellation period to expire before announcing.

If we wanted to cancel it would be done by the the amendment section of the treaty. Which would circumvent the need to wait out the year long period. Rest assured if neither alliances wanted to keep the relationship alive it would have been cancelled already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we wanted to cancel it would be done by the the amendment section of the treaty. Which would circumvent the need to wait out the year long period. Rest assured if neither alliances wanted to keep the relationship alive it would have been cancelled already.

Interesting to say the least... I mean, the treaty was violated thrice over during the war (NPO's attack on OV, MHA's attack on IRON, and MHA's refusal to defend NPO).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting to say the least... I mean, the treaty was violated thrice over during the war (NPO's attack on OV, MHA's attack on IRON, and MHA's refusal to defend NPO).

Indeed, the war put us on opposite sides and the government of the MHA decided for whatever reason to commit the alliance on the IRON front. The last one has been discussed before I can point you to the thread as i do not wish to derail this one.

As for the thread; Expected/10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, the war put us on opposite sides and the government of the MHA decided for whatever reason to commit the alliance on the IRON front. The last one has been discussed before I can point you to the thread as i do not wish to derail this one.

As for the thread; Expected/10

No need, I'm sure the MHA knows my stance on this one... illogical choice of ally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting to say the least... I mean, the treaty was violated thrice over during the war (NPO's attack on OV, MHA's attack on IRON, and MHA's refusal to defend NPO).

A treaty between two sovereign alliances, as well as how outside events impact that treaty, are open to interpretation by the alliances that sign it, and only the alliances that sign it. If both parties agree on and are able to get over what happened, regardless of the legality in their treaty, then more power to them. If MHA and NPO still see themselves as friends, then what right do any of us have to tell them that their friendship is wrong or illegal via article X of their treaty that was technically violated in a way that was probably unavoidable (not saying you said it was illegal, I'm just adding that for emphasis). Us sitting here and e-lawyering a document that does not even affect us is quite pointless, to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting to say the least... I mean, the treaty was violated thrice over during the war (NPO's attack on OV, MHA's attack on IRON, and MHA's refusal to defend NPO).

Treaty text.

  1. NPO's attack on OV
    I am not sure which clause you think this attack violated. NPO certainly complied with III.C.
  2. MHA's attack on IRON
    You probably think this was a violation of III.D. It wasn't. MHA's war with IRON was defensive in nature, and III.D. only prohibits aggressive wars.
  3. MHA's refusal to defend NPO
    By a plain reading of III.A., this is a treaty violation. MHA has clearly stated that they intended this treaty to be a non-chaining treaty, though; I would suggest a rewording of III.A. Note that MHA did defend NPO against bandwagoners, which is in line with their interpretation of III.A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[*]NPO's attack on OV

I am not sure which clause you think this attack violated. NPO certainly complied with III.C.

No, they did not, as MHA government members admitted immediately after NPO's declaration.

[*]MHA's attack on IRON

You probably think this was a violation of III.D. It wasn't. MHA's war with IRON was defensive in nature, and III.D. only prohibits aggressive wars.

IRON most certainly didn't declare war on MHA. If you think along the lines that "an attack on one is considered an attack on its treaty partners," then NPO violated III.D in declaring war on OV.

[*]MHA's refusal to defend NPO

By a plain reading of III.A., this is a treaty violation. MHA has clearly stated that they intended this treaty to be a non-chaining treaty, though; I would suggest a rewording of III.A. Note that MHA did defend NPO against bandwagoners, which is in line with their interpretation of III.A.

I don't see the word "bandwagoners" in the treaty, nor do I see a non-chaining clause, nor would a non-chaining clause apply to every attacker that declared on NPO.

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...