Härmlin Announcement

[Karl I]

o/ Härmlin

[WorkingClassRuler]

Maybe if you actually countered the argument which goes:

MHA had no MDP's directly with anyone we attacked.

The treaty spells out attacking TOP MDP allies is only allowed in response to direct MDP triggering.

MHA attacked IRON, a TOP MDP ally.

Or maybe you could, instead, explain why that MDP-exception is in the treaty if it doesn't mean that when that exception doesn't exist it's no different.

This is where I e-lawyer better than you.

5. Both signatories are prohibited from initiating offensive action against any MDP/MADP partners of the other signatory. This clause will not apply should an MDP/MADP partner of either signatory initiate any hostilities that lead to activation of an MDP by either signatory.

TOP and IRON went offensive on CnG. Their actions lead to the activation of MDP's by MHA. It does NOT say "direct" activation, it states "lead to an activation", since we're getting microscopically stupid about this. You guys attacked CnG, we have joined in their defense with our mutual allies through any number of treaties - Fark, Umbrella, Sparta, GO, Härmlins - all are active as a result of YOUR aggressive action against CnG. Anyone can see that we have a close relationship with this "side" and indeed would support the Aqua alliances in CnG.

Your MDP partner (IRON) initiated hostilities that lead to activation of an MDP (as above) of MHA. They have nulled Article 5.

You yourselves initiated hostilities that lead to an activation of an MDP (as above) of MHA. You have nulled Article 5.

You attacked CnG without defensive obligations, you yourselves declared this was an aggressive war. You have nulled Article 2.

You did not communicate, as per your Intelligence sharing requirements, your intentions to declare war on CnG today. You have nulled Article 3.

As pointed out by my fellow Hitchhikers, Härmlins supersedes all. While Gre no longer hold paper treaties, they were quite clear on who they remained friends with. MK are considered an ally of Härmlins, you directly attack MK through CnG. As per Article 4, this is our interpretation of Article 5. TOP should be well aware of the relationship between Gre and MHA, this is no surprise to you. As per Article 4, if this was an issue for TOP, you should have brought it to our attention in a timely fashion - prior to declaring war on MK and CnG. We would never have supported this. Feigning ignorance over the MHA-Gre, Gre-MK relationship after you've declared war on MK is not a suitable excuse for side-stepping Article 4.

As per Article 4 and Article 2, and you should have discussed the possible implications of attacking CnG with MHA prior to declaring. You did not.

In future, don't go down this street lest you know where it's heading.

[Jack Diorno]

This is where I e-lawyer better than you.

TOP and IRON went offensive on CnG. Their actions lead to the activation of MDP's by MHA. It does NOT say "direct" activation, it states "lead to an activation", since we're getting microscopically stupid about this. You guys attacked CnG, we have joined in their defense with our mutual allies through any number of treaties - Fark, Umbrella, Sparta, GO, Härmlins - all are active as a result of YOUR aggressive action against CnG. Anyone can see that we have a close relationship with this "side" and indeed would support the Aqua alliances in CnG.

Your MDP partner (IRON) initiated hostilities that lead to activation of an MDP (as above) of MHA. They have nulled Article 5.

You yourselves initiated hostilities that lead to an activation of an MDP (as above) of MHA. You have nulled Article 5.

You attacked CnG without defensive obligations, you yourselves declared this was an aggressive war. You have nulled Article 2.

You did not communicate, as per your Intelligence sharing requirements, your intentions to declare war on CnG today. You have nulled Article 3.

As pointed out by my fellow Hitchhikers, Härmlins supersedes all. While Gre no longer hold paper treaties, they were quite clear on who they remained friends with. MK are considered an ally of Härmlins, you directly attack MK through CnG. As per Article 4, this is our interpretation of Article 5. TOP should be well aware of the relationship between Gre and MHA, this is no surprise to you. As per Article 4, if this was an issue for TOP, you should have brought it to our attention in a timely fashion - prior to declaring war on MK and CnG. We would never have supported this. Feigning ignorance over the MHA-Gre, Gre-MK relationship after you've declared war on MK is not a suitable excuse for side-stepping Article 4.

As per Article 4 and Article 2, and you should have discussed the possible implications of attacking CnG with MHA prior to declaring. You did not.

In future, don't go down this street lest you know where it's heading.

So they attacked us and you're defending us?

At least I get it.

[Tromp]

Heh, short and sweet announcement.

That was fun.

[WorkingClassRuler]

Jack. That's the short version, yes.

[Lemeard]

I don't see anything sad about this. Send IRON to the scrap yard for good this time.

It sure is about time.

[fallin]

Anybody that tries to out e-lawyer WCR really hasn't seen the Hitchhikers' Assembly at the MHA forums before. >.>

[Wilhelm the Demented]

Don't forget your towels.

[avernite]

This is where I e-lawyer better than you.

TOP and IRON went offensive on CnG. Their actions lead to the activation of MDP's by MHA. It does NOT say "direct" activation, it states "lead to an activation", since we're getting microscopically stupid about this. You guys attacked CnG, we have joined in their defense with our mutual allies through any number of treaties - Fark, Umbrella, Sparta, GO, Härmlins - all are active as a result of YOUR aggressive action against CnG. Anyone can see that we have a close relationship with this "side" and indeed would support the Aqua alliances in CnG.

Your MDP partner (IRON) initiated hostilities that lead to activation of an MDP (as above) of MHA. They have nulled Article 5.

You yourselves initiated hostilities that lead to an activation of an MDP (as above) of MHA. You have nulled Article 5.

You attacked CnG without defensive obligations, you yourselves declared this was an aggressive war. You have nulled Article 2.

You did not communicate, as per your Intelligence sharing requirements, your intentions to declare war on CnG today. You have nulled Article 3.

As pointed out by my fellow Hitchhikers, Härmlins supersedes all. While Gre no longer hold paper treaties, they were quite clear on who they remained friends with. MK are considered an ally of Härmlins, you directly attack MK through CnG. As per Article 4, this is our interpretation of Article 5. TOP should be well aware of the relationship between Gre and MHA, this is no surprise to you. As per Article 4, if this was an issue for TOP, you should have brought it to our attention in a timely fashion - prior to declaring war on MK and CnG. We would never have supported this. Feigning ignorance over the MHA-Gre, Gre-MK relationship after you've declared war on MK is not a suitable excuse for side-stepping Article 4.

As per Article 4 and Article 2, and you should have discussed the possible implications of attacking CnG with MHA prior to declaring. You did not.

In future, don't go down this street lest you know where it's heading.

I know full well which way it is heading, which is why my VERY FIRST POST ON THE SUBJECT said 'unless you want to say your Grämlins MDP was triggered'.

Now, you may say it's one of the other MDPs, but same difference. Basically, you agreed with me from post 1, so why exactly did any of you ever say you disagreed?

[WorkingClassRuler]

Because as I clearly indicated in my post above, its not just the Härmlin Accords and indeed I only mentioned it last. You might find it useful to your point to dismiss everything I said before bringing up Härmlins, but unfortunately it's still the truth.

[majorddf]

LOL. WCR jut turned your argument to scrap metal. Your Nation and Alliance to Follow

http://www.break.com/usercontent/2007/4/Ice-Bomb-283901.html

In this example you are the iron ball, we are the dry ice. Laters Fella.

[Poyplemonkeys]

WCR that post was beautiful. Surely if TOP sees this war as a coalition war as stated in the OP, they consider themselves to be at war with the entirety of the opposite coaltion? I mean that's their excuse for entering the war with no direct treaty ties, so why shouldn't it work vice versa?

[avernite]

LOL. WCR jut turned your argument to scrap metal. Your Nation and Alliance to Follow

http://www.break.com/usercontent/2007/4/Ice-Bomb-283901.html

In this example you are the iron ball, we are the dry ice. Laters Fella.

I'm sorry, he used the out I specifically said he could use?

Yeah, really turned my argument into scrap metal by first arguing against me for several posts then using that out anyway.

[WorkingClassRuler]

I'm sorry, he used the out I specifically said he could use?

Yeah, really turned my argument into scrap metal by first arguing against me for several posts then using that out anyway.

Cough.

Because as I clearly indicated in my post above, its not just the Härmlin Accords and indeed I only mentioned it last. You might find it useful to your point to dismiss everything I said before bringing up Härmlins, but unfortunately it's still the truth.

[fallin]

I'm sorry, he used the out I specifically said he could use?

Yeah, really turned my argument into scrap metal by first arguing against me for several posts then using that out anyway.

What was the point of arguing with us when you knew we had a legitmate argument?

[avernite]

What was the point of arguing with us when you knew we had a legitmate argument?

'Well, you did break your treaty unless you say you went in via your grämlins MDP'

'No we didn't'

That's how the argument started.

A lack of arguing would have been had by:

'Well, you did break your treaty unless you say you went in via your grämlins MDP'

'Actually, Sparta works too'

'hmm, true... damn'

[WorkingClassRuler]

Mate, we didn't break the treaty.

[avernite]

Mate, we didn't break the treaty.

That was the eventual conclusion, yes.

[Inferno]

o/ Härmlin

I wish you succes in your enterprise.

You will fight with honor like I know you do.

My love is with my brothers in Harmlins.

Inferno of Ariana SALUT you!!!

PD: Ram and Erty i wish you get ZIed asap, and with pain

[Bob Janova]

It appears that Ramirus has finally got his wish of destroying any semblance of friendly relations between these great alliances (Gre/MHA and TOP) – though, that said, IRON and TOP were asking for it by bringing in uninvolved alliances.

[Sir Keshav IV]

Good Luck Gremlins.

o/

[Locke]

IRON and their minions? Isn't IRON the minion?

[Hadrian]

Oh great. Now we're at war with a bunch of immature boys.

Good luck. You will need it.

[LiquidMercury]

Meh nevermind. Just stupid to bother going into it. It's a sucky position for all.

Edited January 29, 2010 by LiquidMercury

[Centurius]

To be fair, would having target lists for IRON prior to any declaration by TOP or IRON be considered an act of hostility? And by prior, I mean significantly prior to this. I'm not good at e-lawyering so I choose not to engage in it, but I am curious as to the answer of this for nothing more then curiosity sake. I realize that we have put MHA in a position that is unfavorable and for that I do apologize for my harmlin brothers.

It's never bad to be prepared, preparations for war aren't an act of aggression until the person conducting them actually attacks.