An MHAnnouncement

[AndyDe]

Date of karma war start: April 20

We announced leaving Q: 20th of April 2009

Given that we announced when the cancellation period was over we did not hold treaties with those alliances when the karma war began.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='flak attack' date='20 March 2010 - 02:41 AM' timestamp='1269052847' post='2230852']
It was TOP's fault they got beat down. Seeing anyone try to complain otherwise is hilarious. They started the war, didn't they?
[/quote]

The fact you have been repeating the same line for over 2 months now should make you think for a bit about the reasons it's having such a hard time holding itself as an argument.

[Gizmo]

[quote name='sethb' date='19 March 2010 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1269051913' post='2230843']
Don't take this as a slight against MHA but those alliances aren't exactly war machines. :x
[/quote]


I think IRON was quite a capable war machine. They fought with honor and intensity and have yet to leave the battle field. The problem was that people underestimated MHA and it's resolve.

[WorkingClassRuler]

[quote name='Methrage' date='20 March 2010 - 01:45 PM' timestamp='1269053107' post='2230857']
I'm also referring to right before the Karma War, you were allied to many of them through Q at least when that war started.
[/quote]

Funny, I thought it was 2010 now. But hey, if you need to bring up old history to make a weak point, then by all means let us ignore it's irrelevancy and dive straight in.

Continuum had a cancellation period. We told them we wanted out, we voted on it in the alliance for 5 days, then initiated the 3 day cancellation period. Lo and behold, on the very last day of the period, TPF posts a "CB" against OV and they and NPO push for war immediately. You're right that us leaving tC and the start of the war occurring at the same time was not a coincidence, but you are looking in the wrong direction. We then only joined the Karma War because IRON declared on our MDP partner ROK, because it was our obligation to do so despite the fact we were recently allied to IRON. We acknowledged as such in our DoW.

It also serves to prove the point that these so-called allies have no idea who we are, and expect us to willing act as a meatshield for their wars. We are mostly Harmless - we put diplomacy before war, peace above all else, and we do not start or support aggressively initiated global wars based on flimsy or nonexistent evidence. So I find it laughable that an ally would try to do something we are vehemently against and cry when we don't support it. And if those allies had any sense of decency, they would take responsibility for their own actions instead of complaining about the consequences.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Lusitan' date='20 March 2010 - 02:49 PM' timestamp='1269053348' post='2230860']
The fact you have been repeating the same line for over 2 months now should make you think for a bit about the reasons it's having such a hard time holding itself as an argument.
[/quote]
Or, of course, we are repeating the line because it is still valid.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Banksy' date='20 March 2010 - 03:02 AM' timestamp='1269054151' post='2230871']
Or, of course, we are repeating the line because it is still valid.
[/quote]

Did you even re-read your post before making it?

The validity of the line is discussable, and has been done so [i]ad nauseum[/i]. What I pointed out is that the line does not seem to be able to hold on its own without Mushroom Kingdom propaganda machine repeating it over and over again during the course of 2 months.

[Stonewall Jaxon]

[quote name='nutkase' date='19 March 2010 - 09:22 PM' timestamp='1269051742' post='2230838']
Yes we love our Infrastructure so much we decided to enter the war and fight against IRON, NADC, MCXA, GGA, Echelon and TUF.
[/quote]

Oh I'm sorry; I didn't realize what horrible odds you've faced!

[quote]Date of karma war start: April 20

We announced leaving Q: 20th of April 2009[/quote]

"Don't shoot until we can get out of the way!"

MHA, you've got to be the best allies of all time!

[WorkingClassRuler]

You and loyalty, Stonewall. That's an entirely different discussion.

But I've noticed you now. Yes, hello. I see you. Happy now?

[nutkase]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' date='20 March 2010 - 11:14 AM' timestamp='1269054845' post='2230888']
Oh I'm sorry; I didn't realize what horrible odds you've faced!



"Don't shoot until we can get out of the way!"

MHA, you've got to be the best allies of all time!
[/quote]








[quote name='Working_Class_Ruler' date='20 March 2010 - 11:01 AM' timestamp='1269054052' post='2230869']

It also serves to prove the point that these so-called allies have no idea who we are, and expect us to willing act as a meatshield for their wars. We are mostly Harmless - we put diplomacy before war, peace above all else, and we do not start or support aggressively initiated global wars based on flimsy or nonexistent evidence. So I find it laughable that an ally would try to do something we are vehemently against and cry when we don't support it. And if those allies had any sense of decency, they would take responsibility for their own actions instead of complaining about the consequences.
[/quote]

Read it Jaxon, then read it again then maybe a third time.

[Bob]

[quote name='Lusitan' date='19 March 2010 - 10:49 PM' timestamp='1269053348' post='2230860']
The fact you have been repeating the same line for over 2 months now should make you think for a bit about the reasons it's having such a hard time holding itself as an argument.
[/quote]
The fact that you want to think its having a hard time holding itself together because people who fought on the same side as TOP and people who are clearly biased towards TOP are arguing against it, doesn't mean it is invalid. Sorry.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='20 March 2010 - 03:31 AM' timestamp='1269055879' post='2230902']
The fact that you want to think its having a hard time holding itself together because people who fought on the same side as TOP and people who are clearly biased towards TOP are arguing against it, doesn't mean it is invalid. Sorry.
[/quote]

Hardly means it's valid either. Look, I am not trying to argue over it's validity, I am saying that if it logically was such a clear case, you wouldn't need to be repeating it over 2 months. Unless your propaganda is losing quality of course

[Gizmo]

[quote name='Lusitan' date='19 March 2010 - 08:36 PM' timestamp='1269056169' post='2230905']
Hardly means it's valid either. Look, I am not trying to argue over it's validity, I am saying that if it logically was such a clear case, you wouldn't need to be repeating it over 2 months. Unless your propaganda is losing quality of course
[/quote]

2 months later and you are still complaining about it. Must be true.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[quote name='Working_Class_Ruler' date='19 March 2010 - 11:01 PM' timestamp='1269054052' post='2230869']
We then only joined the Karma War because IRON declared on our MDP partner ROK, because it was our obligation to do so despite the fact we were recently allied to IRON. We acknowledged as such in our DoW. [/quote]
Or that IRON were TOP's direct allies during the Karma War, since we're speaking of attacking one's allies. I'm just pointing it out, not actually blaming you. Unlike others, I can appreciate the context and, really, I feel this whole affair of "you attacked our allies!11!!" is always overblown. The way the treaty web is, that kind of stuff will always happen, because we cannot control the necessities of war. Of course, in this case (this war), TOP have avoided attacking one of your direct allies, just like you could have avoided attacking IRON during the Karma War. Others of your allies were targetted. You had other allies in the fight too. You attacked IRON because it was a major opponent. It was a strategical choice. We - as it seems by our lack of cancellation - understood it.

Now, on to the declaration, it is a most needed move. Relations between our two alliances were obviously not worthy of a MDoAP, let alone a treaty. We wish you the best and hope that time will help the dialogue.

Edited March 20, 2010 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[WorkingClassRuler]

[quote name='Lusitan' date='20 March 2010 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1269056169' post='2230905']
Hardly means it's valid either. Look, I am not trying to argue over it's validity, I am saying that if it logically was such a clear case, you wouldn't need to be repeating it over 2 months. Unless your propaganda is losing quality of course
[/quote]

Perhaps in most places this would be true, but look at where it's being argued. If some one can bring up Continuum well over a year later in an entirely unrelated discussion, surely that's an indication of the quality of arguing here and thus, how long something has been argued for has no relevance to it's logic.

Having said that, TOP started the war.

Edit; Be nice, WCR.

Edited March 20, 2010 by Working_Class_Ruler

[fallin]

[quote name='Methrage' date='20 March 2010 - 02:31 AM' timestamp='1269052292' post='2230848']
What most of those names have in common is they were MHA allies right up until they ended up on the losing side of a war and MHA enters on the other side to ensure their defeat in a war they're already losing.
[/quote]

GGA was allied to MHA. Are you kidding me? Are you truly saying that with a straight face?

[Banksy]

[quote name='Lusitan' date='20 March 2010 - 03:11 PM' timestamp='1269054685' post='2230886']
Did you even re-read your post before making it?

The validity of the line is discussable, and has been done so [i]ad nauseum[/i]. What I pointed out is that the line does not seem to be able to hold on its own without Mushroom Kingdom propaganda machine repeating it over and over again during the course of 2 months.
[/quote]
Um...

You could always stop reading if you're feeling nauseous

You are sick of hearing the line. Great, it does not make it invalid. Furthermore, the line does not become invalid simply because you don't believe it. As long as people continue to deny the attack was aggressive, we will bring this up. We're stubborn.

[janax]

Good luck TOP.

[Stonewall Jaxon]

[quote]It also serves to prove the point that these so-called allies have no idea who we are, and expect us to willing act as a meatshield for their wars. We are mostly Harmless - we put diplomacy before war, peace above all else, and we do not start or support aggressively initiated global wars based on flimsy or nonexistent evidence. So I find it laughable that an ally would try to do something we are vehemently against and cry when we don't support it. And if those allies had any sense of decency, they would take responsibility for their own actions instead of complaining about the consequences. [/quote]

This is a favorite of mine; the idea that those who ran from NPO before the Karma War did so because of some sort of moral objection to NPO's policies. Isn't it funny that such "aggressive moves" only become objectionable to you right before the aggressive actions of your protectors comes back to bite them? You were perfectly content to prosper in Continuum, who were far from "Mostly Harmless," yet right when you caught wind of the war, you bolted from beneath NPO's umbrella of protection and right beneath Karma's protections, like a snake slithering from beneath one rock to another whenever the rock is lifted.

As to my loyalty, my excursion into MHA is the most regrettable point in my career because it was the first and only period during which I expressed one loyalty while holding another. I left because I was fed up with it, and I never intend to dishonor myself in such a way again. However, I don't see what bearing that has on this discussion, WCR.

[Believland]

[quote name='jadoo1989' date='19 March 2010 - 07:58 PM' timestamp='1269043085' post='2230697']
I really think you're grasping at straws here. TOP wasn't just standing there minding their own business on a street corner when someone came along and mugged them, no. They decided that they wanted to have a few beers and drive their mustang full speed into a wall because the wall called them names and looked at them funny. We did our part. We asked them to stop drinking, we asked them not to drive. We were ignored. Their being 'crushed' (still think that's a bit of an overkill) wasn't exactly some unforseen accident. Point is, we don't decide to attack blocks of alliances because they troll us on the OWF. They are fighting for the existence of their alliance? No, not hardly. Thanks for your input though, I guess I won't be getting any christmas cards from you?
[/quote]
What were you saying to "The Brick wall"?

[quote name='flak attack' date='19 March 2010 - 10:41 PM' timestamp='1269052847' post='2230852']
Let's not forget attacking an MDP partner of ORB, their ODP partner.


It was TOP's fault they got beat down. Seeing anyone try to complain otherwise is hilarious. They started the war, didn't they?
[/quote]
If you're going to talk about TOP hitting their ally's treaty partners then you should look back a bit.

[quote name='AndyDe' date='19 March 2010 - 10:49 PM' timestamp='1269053344' post='2230859']
Date of karma war start: April 20

We announced leaving Q: 20th of April 2009

Given that we announced when the cancellation period was over we did not hold treaties with those alliances when the karma war began.
[/quote]
You had a treaty with NPO at the time. Which had a 3 year cancellation period. The only reason it was canceled was due to NPO's surrender terms.

As far as TOP starting the war goes, no they didn't. They started that front, not the war. If you cannot remember, it stemmed off of the \m/-Polaris dispute.

MHA, you really weren't close to TOP. TOP always thought of you as Gre's ally more than TOP's. And congrats on canceling the treaty, I don't think you would have honored it anyway, and I don't believe TOP would either. So it's best to get rid of a useless treaty. Congrats

[Tyler Mattingly]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' date='19 March 2010 - 11:01 PM' timestamp='1269057646' post='2230933']
This is a favorite of mine; the idea that those who ran from NPO before the Karma War did so because of some sort of moral objection to NPO's policies. Isn't it funny that such "aggressive moves" only become objectionable to you right before the aggressive actions of your protectors comes back to bite them? You were perfectly content to prosper in Continuum, who were far from "Mostly Harmless," yet right when you caught wind of the war, you bolted from beneath NPO's umbrella of protection and right beneath Karma's protections, like a snake slithering from beneath one rock to another whenever the rock is lifted.

As to my loyalty, my excursion into MHA is the most regrettable point in my career because it was the first and only period during which I expressed one loyalty while holding another. I left because I was fed up with it, and I never intend to dishonor myself in such a way again. However, I don't see what bearing that has on this discussion, WCR.
[/quote]

In the exact same way I don't understand why you need to keep bringing up something that happened a year ago, when the topic at hand is us canceling on TOP. Follow what you say.

TM

[WorkingClassRuler]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' date='20 March 2010 - 03:01 PM' timestamp='1269057646' post='2230933']
As to my loyalty, my excursion into MHA is the most regrettable point in my career because it was the first and only period during which I expressed one loyalty while holding another. I left because I was fed up with it, and I never intend to dishonor myself in such a way again. However, I don't see what bearing that has on this discussion, WCR.
[/quote]

Because you are the last person who should be commenting on loyalty, allegiances, or those who slithered out from the protection of others when it became convenient. I may not be long for this world, but you will always be a traitor. So please don't think your comments will have any resonance here.

[President S O]

Best of luck to TOP in moving forward, best of luck guys.

[Lord Curzon]

Well gentlemen this has been a classy thread through and through. I'm sorry to see two friends part like this. It is clear from the MHA members' posts in this thread there is no longer a relationship between your two respective alliances. Sorry your relationship has changed so rapidly, but I hope you at least gave TOP a fair shot to explain their actions.

It is too bad that such an announcement needs to immediately become a mudslinging contest but I suppose we need an additional place to debate the same points given that a number of other [OOC]threads[/OOC] seem to have died down.

[nutkase]

[quote name='Believland' date='20 March 2010 - 12:05 PM' timestamp='1269057910' post='2230940']

As far as TOP starting the war goes, no they didn't. They started that front, not the war. If you cannot remember, it stemmed off of the \m/-Polaris dispute.

[/quote]

Well a lot of people consider it another War, based on the fact that both sides (C&G and TOP/IRON and others) had not entered the war which was already raging. When you look at that its actually a second war. Also to the fact you can actually have two different wars waged at the same time and not be automatically linked to each other.

TOP hit C&G because they saw they were in a weakened state due to there allies being involved in a current war especially NpO.

Edited March 20, 2010 by nutkase

[DracoDark]

good luck to both sides :3