An MHAnnouncement

[Kowalski]

[quote name='Vend3tta' date='19 March 2010 - 11:43 PM' timestamp='1269042172' post='2230674']
Wait, you had a treaty with TOP this whole time? While being at war with IRON? Wow. Why even bother cancelling it when you don't acknowledge its existence?
[/quote]
A number of alliances declared war on ally's allies, including TOP and Umbrella. Would you direct these remarks at them (and us) as well?

[quote name='D34th' date='20 March 2010 - 05:41 AM' timestamp='1269063642' post='2231065']
May be I'm wrong but I never saw MHA canceling a treaty with the winning side.
[/quote]
RoK, not long before the war started. If you mean directly after a war then that's an unrealistic observation as relations between those on the same side rarely suffer and the examples of this involving any alliance are pretty slim on the ground. There's also a number of examples of MHA not canceling treaties with those on the losing side, but I'm sure that can be ignored as well.

[quote name='Alterego' date='20 March 2010 - 10:11 AM' timestamp='1269079867' post='2231176']
People drift all the time, but cancelling during a war after watching them being taking apart and doing nothing is lame. Oh yeah they drifted apart, one has 11m NS and the other is passing 4m NS on the way down. One alliance put their infra before friends and one didnt MHA are the new ODN.
[/quote]
It may have escaped your attention but MHA had friends other than TOP; why would MHA choose TOP over any of those when TOP's attitude towards MHA was so poor? Various alliances fought on the opposite side of allies whilst honouring other treaties, are they all lame infra-huggers?

Edited March 20, 2010 by Kowalski

[Crazy Carrot]

Solid move, MHA. Good luck in the future!

[Crymson]

[quote name='Working_Class_Ruler' date='19 March 2010 - 07:33 PM' timestamp='1269048763' post='2230799']
I'm positively shaking in my Chuck Taylors.

MHA has never claimed to be faultless in the break down of prior treaties, but MHA has also never started a global war against the friends of our allies either. There does seem to be a history of MHA not supporting people who aggressively start global wars against our friends, as I hope any alliance would. You don't honestly wish to suggest that we carry on and pretend TOP didn't attack our friends and aided our enemy, do you? How ridiculous. And to imply this is somehow an underhanded decision is laughable, as anyone could see this was an inevitable decision and, in fact, well over due. I'm sure you think yourself witty for posting such an baseless accusation, along with an even more baseless threat, but you are not.
[/quote]

I don't think MHA had any treaties nor any friendships at all with signatories of CnG. The Gramlins, too, whom you might cite as a reason for your entry, had no treaty with anyone in CnG. I'm aware that we technically went in aggressively, and I'm aware that we did violate the Lux; that said, it was MHA, not TOP, who initially violated the treaty between TOP and MHA (all should note that TOP did not attack an MDP partner of MHA; I do not know where the misconception to the contrary arose from). You'll recall that you went in on an aggressive clause. The pertinent text is below.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

In light of all the talk that TOP's actions spurred MHA's entry into the war, I think it deserves mention that MHA was planning to preempt IRON regardless of what we did. I think it also bears mention that MHA lied to us about what they were planning to do in this war; they had told us that they would only enter the war to defend FARK and that they did not wish to significantly affect the course of the war in general. MHA's actions in lying to us and in attacking our treaty partner destroyed the trust between us well before we sent any aid to GGA. The logs relating to MHA's plans on IRON are below; they date from immediately after they declared war on IRON.

[quote]
[23:08] <@Pudge1975[MoDF]> if you look at everything yesterday it looked like Iron and us would dance
[23:08] <@Pudge1975[MoDF]> that is all we knew
[23:09] <&KissGoodbye[TOP]> What I don't understand is why you're helping defend people you have no treaty with
[23:09] <&KissGoodbye[TOP]> If IRON had hit Fark? Ok
[23:09] <&KissGoodbye[TOP]> PS Fark hit IRON
[23:10] <@Pudge1975[MoDF]> again it was a defend as it was hitting the only thing that we thought could hurt MHA...I spoke to Iron this morning and the comment was he hoped I didnt hold a grudge after the war
[23:10] <&KissGoodbye[TOP]> Defense of who?
[23:10] <&KissGoodbye[TOP]> I mean, I know we entered without a CB either so I don't fault you for doing the same
[23:11] <&KissGoodbye[TOP]> But I'm not really clear on how you were defending
[23:11] <@Pudge1975[MoDF]> US Kiss
[23:11] <&KissGoodbye[TOP]> I don't get it.
[23:11] <@Pudge1975[MoDF]> we really thought we were making a pre emptive
[23:11] <&KissGoodbye[TOP]> Ah.
[23:11] <@Pudge1975[MoDF]> everything showed Iron and us
[23:11] <&KissGoodbye[TOP]> Pre-emptive only works if they were gonna hit your ally, which they weren't :\
[23:12] <@Pudge1975[MoDF]> everything lead up to them hitting Fark or us
[/quote]

I hope this sheds some more light on this situation.

Note that this post is not authorized by TOP's government. I might be yelled at for making it, as we were in fact asked to not engage in discussion in this thread.

[quote name='Working_Class_Ruler' date='20 March 2010 - 03:34 AM' timestamp='1269077660' post='2231167']
I think you might need to read it mate. TOP wanted to attack Fark, who is our direct ally. When that wouldn't fly, they stopped talking to us and attacked CnG. That was our "main objection", seeing as we declared on IRON and all.

I think our reaction ranges between "Take responsibility for your actions" and "Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining". Both of which apply here.
[/quote]

This is untrue. We never had any plans to attack FARK. I am curious as to why you think otherwise.

Edited March 20, 2010 by Crymson

[LiquidMercury]

[quote name='Timeline' date='20 March 2010 - 08:38 AM' timestamp='1269092292' post='2231251']
apart from the part i made bold, the rest of your statement is nothing but crap, you have no idea what was going on, UNLESS you are admitting to having a spy within MHA you do not know that MHA had target lists for IRON two days before you attacked CnG.
[/quote]


[quote name='Cormalek' date='20 March 2010 - 08:54 AM' timestamp='1269093268' post='2231262']
I can't tell if you're lying on purpose here or just don't know all(any?) facts. I hope I don't tattle some classified stuff here, but here:

The day before the attack, it was still unsure if we are going in at all. 7 hours before the attack some of us were told to be prepared to check before the crucial strategic moment [ooc:update] whether we were at war. The decision was made in last hours prior to attack, because of which there was no friggin target list. While the command worked hard in those last hours, and put together one, it was a last minute thing; personally I was able to hit only 1 of assigned targets, and had little under 20 minutes to figure out which, and start shooting. We went DefCon3 to 1 in a matter of hours.

So - [b]no[/b]. there was no definite and long planned offensive. Something that - if you were well informed, instead of pretending to be well informed - you'd know, seeing how small number of initial wars on MHA-IRON front was, especially those with highest initiative factor [ooc:update-quads].

While all of your opinions seem balanced + we have a lot of warm feelings toward IRON atm (because even though we're opponents, you are a honorable opponent. Things get funny that way sometimes.), it seems that you base some of them on inaccurate(at best) arguments.
[/quote]

You two are both misinformed. Target lists were drawn up, the decision was made prior. I've got logs from various parties within MHA and out of MHA confirming this. No I won't be showing.

I do agree that there was no long-term offensive action planned towards IRON on behalf of MHA (outside of the pre-war planning).

EDIT: Agreeing with Crymson in regards to us not wanting to attack Fark. We actually wanted Fark out, a lot of like those guys genuinely.

Edited March 20, 2010 by LiquidMercury

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='Cormalek' date='20 March 2010 - 12:09 AM' timestamp='1269068961' post='2231117']
FYI, when entering the war MHA's NS was on level of 14'728'917. GGA-NADC-MCXA-TUF-Echelon had joint NS of 16'088'275. IRON was another 13'846'575. Yes, I believe that were some tough odds.
Damsky, so we have no balls because we won? oO
[/quote]

...

You act as if you were the only one fighting those alliances. NADC, MCXA, and Echelon had three alliances on it (all whom vastly outnumbered them), TUF had two, and IRON had ten.

So to reiterate, yes, it takes no balls to fight on the winning side in a curb stomp.

[WorkingClassRuler]

[quote name='Crymson' date='21 March 2010 - 03:47 AM' timestamp='1269103612' post='2231330']
I don't think MHA had any treaties nor any friendships at all with signatories of CnG. The Gramlins, too, whom you might cite as a reason for your entry, had no treaty with anyone in CnG. I'm aware that we technically went in aggressively, and I'm aware that we did violate the Lux; that said, it was MHA, not TOP, who initially violated the treaty between TOP and MHA (all should note that TOP did not attack an MDP partner of MHA; I do not know where the misconception to the contrary arose from). You'll recall that you went in on an aggressive clause. The pertinent text is below.
[/quote]

Ugh, you're honestly going with the "you have no treaties!!!" argument again? Gees. And I thought bringing up Continuum was slamming your head against a brick wall.

I've also explained in depth previously the many ways in which TOP have violated this treaty. I would hate to have to repeat myself because you don't feel like taking responsibility for your own actions. But I'm glad we can all admit that the treaty was dead to you anyway, so this cancellation shouldn't be such a problem for you, should it?

[quote name='Crymson' date='21 March 2010 - 03:47 AM' timestamp='1269103612' post='2231330']
In light of all the talk that TOP's actions spurred MHA's entry into the war, I think it deserves mention that MHA was planning to preempt IRON regardless of what we did. I think it also bears mention that MHA lied to us about what they were planning to do in this war; they had told us that they would only enter the war to defend FARK and that they did not wish to significantly affect the course of the war in general. MHA's actions in lying to us and in attacking our treaty partner destroyed the trust between us well before we sent any aid to GGA. The logs relating to MHA's plans on IRON are below; they date from immediately after they declared war on IRON.
[/quote]

LOLtastic, really. I'm fairly certain that at the time of discussing FARK, it was *before* you decided to hit CnG and were in fact discussing the NpO-\m/ war. It was here that TOP discussed attacking FARK, it was here that TOP learnt we would not support entering this war. And as a result, you cut off your communications with us and did not tell us you would be attacking CnG, which completely changed our position. It was because you attacked CnG that we entered, you yourself have admitted that we wanted to stay neutral. And that's exactly what we all wanted in MHA until you and IRON attacked CnG. Your claim that we were going to attack IRON regardless is a baseless accusation that I can only imagine you've created on idiotic assumption. I've heard mention of target lists? So what. Our military staff probably had/has lots of prepared lists in case of war, it doesn't prove jack. All your logs show is that we were prepared for the possibility of being at war with IRON, due to the way treaties would line up on either side.

None of that proves dishonest intent on our behalf; it does not at all show that we were lying at any stage, and nor does it show anything but your extreme pettiness at actually log dumping your former allies. Congrats, Crymson. You're a log-dumper. I didn't think you could get any lower, but way to drop the bar.

[quote name='Crymson' date='21 March 2010 - 03:47 AM' timestamp='1269103612' post='2231330']
This is untrue. We never had any plans to attack FARK. I am curious as to why you think otherwise.
[/quote]
Because you discussed it with our Gov, we discussed the possibility of how that would keep us neutral against TOP, and how we would have to defend FARK if they were attacked by others.

[Carlton the Great]

[quote name='Timeline' date='20 March 2010 - 11:46 AM' timestamp='1269099997' post='2231298']
Carlton, do not get me wrong, i think the whole "you must have a CB" it total crap., if you do not like someone so be it, but you attacked C&G for one reason, you felt they was at their weakest, that was your only reason behind it.

What bugs me is how you still claim you did not start this war, well in fact you did.
[/quote]
We attacked C&G because we felt that the Superfriends/C&G side of the treaty web was a strategic threat to us. We wanted to ensure that the fourth primary power bloc in CN, the NpO and its allies, would not be destroyed. I don't see how C&G was at its weakest. And while we obviously started the current TIDTT/C&G war that conflict would not have occurred without the NpO-\m/ war.

[WorkingClassRuler]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='21 March 2010 - 04:26 AM' timestamp='1269105975' post='2231341']
...

You act as if you were the only one fighting those alliances. NADC, MCXA, and Echelon had three alliances on it (all whom vastly outnumbered them), TUF had two, and IRON had ten.

So to reiterate, yes, it takes no balls to fight on the winning side in a curb stomp.
[/quote]

It was not the winning side when we joined, genius.

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='Working_Class_Ruler' date='20 March 2010 - 10:30 AM' timestamp='1269106197' post='2231344']
It was not the winning side when we joined, genius.
[/quote]

It was the winning side when NpO withdrew. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should see that.

[WorkingClassRuler]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='21 March 2010 - 04:32 AM' timestamp='1269106339' post='2231345']
It was the winning side when NpO withdrew. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should see that.
[/quote]

Because NpO was fighting CnG, right?

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Working_Class_Ruler' date='20 March 2010 - 01:30 PM' timestamp='1269106197' post='2231344']
It was not the winning side when we joined, genius.
[/quote]
Keep telling yourselves that. Maybe others will believe it eventually too.

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='Working_Class_Ruler' date='20 March 2010 - 12:30 PM' timestamp='1269106197' post='2231344']
It was not the winning side when we joined, genius.
[/quote]

normally these back and forth things aren't my thing, but I just saw this comment. It was plainly obvious to just about everyone that your side of the war was going to vastly outnumber us.[ooc] Perhaps you don't spend as much time playing CN as the rest of us and so didn't know this? Which would make you far wiser than the rest of us [/ooc]

[WorkingClassRuler]

[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='21 March 2010 - 04:34 AM' timestamp='1269106481' post='2231350']
Keep telling yourselves that. Maybe others will believe it eventually too.
[/quote]

Because who needs facts and stats when you've got subjective opinion, right?

[Cairna]

Does anyone else always read these as a Mahnoucement? I know I do.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Working_Class_Ruler' date='20 March 2010 - 04:34 AM' timestamp='1269077660' post='2231167']
I think you might need to read it mate. TOP wanted to attack Fark, who is our direct ally. When that wouldn't fly, they stopped talking to us and attacked CnG. That was our "main objection", seeing as we declared on IRON and all.
[/quote]
Crymson and LM's post above me have correctly stated that we had no intention/want to attack FARK. Seeing as how you Hitchhikers for some reason still believe this I'll say it again for emphasis. As the Grand Chancellor at the time I am informing you that we never had any plans to attack FARK. So throw that ridiculous argument away.

In regards to the "communication" problems I can't speak for the rest of our former government, however, I can tell you why I stopped talking to your elected officials. The reasoning is because your government members lied to me/us on numerous occasions about your entrance into the war. We told you that we understood if you ended up on the other side and eventually it seemed, after several tries at it, that you finally arrived at the decision to defend FARK/Gram if and only if they were attacked. Imagine our surprise when you aggressively attacked our ally. Alot of you are pointing towards the aid thing as us going against our treaty with you but you are all somehow forgetting how you broke our treaty by attacking our ally.

[WorkingClassRuler]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' date='21 March 2010 - 04:36 AM' timestamp='1269106591' post='2231353']
normally these back and forth things aren't my thing, but I just saw this comment. It was plainly obvious to just about everyone that your side of the war was going to vastly outnumber us.[ooc] Perhaps you don't spend as much time playing CN as the rest of us and so didn't know this? Which would make you far wiser than the rest of us [/ooc]
[/quote]

I personally knew nothing of sides. I knew us and Gre were going to hit IRON, I knew that IRON had a lot of allies - 5 of which declared on MHA. None of this was a done deal until we got to the fighting and the opposition started dropping off.

[LiquidMercury]

[quote name='Working_Class_Ruler' date='20 March 2010 - 12:28 PM' timestamp='1269106096' post='2231342']
LOLtastic, really. I'm fairly certain that at the time of discussing FARK, it was *before* you decided to hit CnG and were in fact discussing the NpO-\m/ war. It was here that TOP discussed attacking FARK, it was here that TOP learnt we would not support entering this war. And as a result, you cut off your communications with us and did not tell us you would be attacking CnG, which completely changed our position. It was because you attacked CnG that we entered, you yourself have admitted that we wanted to stay neutral. And that's exactly what we all wanted in MHA until you and IRON attacked CnG. Your claim that we were going to attack IRON regardless is a baseless accusation that I can only imagine you've created on idiotic assumption. I've heard mention of target lists? So what. Our military staff probably had/has lots of prepared lists in case of war, it doesn't prove jack. All your logs show is that we were prepared for the possibility of being at war with IRON, due to the way treaties would line up on either side.

None of that proves dishonest intent on our behalf; it does not at all show that we were lying at any stage, and nor does it show anything but your extreme pettiness at actually log dumping your former allies. Congrats, Crymson. You're a log-dumper. I didn't think you could get any lower, but way to drop the bar.


Because you discussed it with our Gov, we discussed the possibility of how that would keep us neutral against TOP, and how we would have to defend FARK if they were attacked by others.
[/quote]


WCR, I notified pudge multiple times we'd be attacking CnG. I did not make it known that we would be pre-emptive attacking though.

As far as your military having/had lots of prepared lists in case of war, no. You know just as well as I do that that's not the case. If you had said Polar, MK, PC, or other various military minded people then yes I would agree with you. For the sake of our past relations I will not start log dumping as to the various things that were talked about with MHA gov (between myself and them). I suggest you leave it at that and we agree to disagree how this all played out, who got betrayed, etc. etc.

I for one wish MHA the best in their endeavors and congratulate them on the number 1 rank. I apologize for putting you all in a precarious position that ultimately lead to you all feeling as though you were betrayed.

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='Working_Class_Ruler' date='20 March 2010 - 10:34 AM' timestamp='1269106454' post='2231348']
Because NpO was fighting CnG, right?
[/quote]

Did I say that? I'm talking about coalition vs. coalition. When NpO withdrew TOP and company not only lost NpO's NS but their numerous allies and allies' allies.

When you joined against IRON you knew you would have support. And if you were smart enough you knew that support was larger then what IRON and company could muster. The decision (to declare) took no guts.

[WorkingClassRuler]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='21 March 2010 - 04:38 AM' timestamp='1269106692' post='2231356']
Crymson and LM's post above me have correctly stated that we had no intention/want to attack FARK. Seeing as how you Hitchhikers for some reason still believe this I'll say it again for emphasis. As the Grand Chancellor at the time I am informing you that we never had any plans to attack FARK. So throw that ridiculous argument away.

In regards to the "communication" problems I can't speak for the rest of our former government, however, I can tell you why I stopped talking to your elected officials. The reasoning is because your government members lied to me/us on numerous occasions about your entrance into the war. We told you that we understood if you ended up on the other side and eventually it seemed, after several tries at it, that you finally arrived at the decision to defend FARK/Gram if and only if they were attacked. Imagine our surprise when you aggressively attacked our ally. Alot of you are pointing towards the aid thing as us going against our treaty with you but you are all somehow forgetting how you broke our treaty by attacking our ally.
[/quote]

Oh god, it gets funnier. Now we were lying to you? When we aggressively attacked your ally?

I am so glad to be done with you lot. I won't get to laugh as much, but god at least I won't be shaking my head as much either.

[WorkingClassRuler]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='21 March 2010 - 04:38 AM' timestamp='1269106703' post='2231358']
I did not make it known that we would be pre-emptive attacking though.
[/quote]

End of discussion, really.

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Working_Class_Ruler' date='20 March 2010 - 01:36 PM' timestamp='1269106600' post='2231354']
Because who needs facts and stats when you've got subjective opinion, right?
[/quote]
Is that what you want?

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/TOP-CnG_War

TOP/IRON Side
[quote]Update, Jan 29
+ TOP, IRON, DAWN, TORN
771 nations
32,100,508 NS
8,507 nukes [/quote]

CnG Side
[quote]Update +4h, Jan 29
+ C&G, MHA, Gremlins, Fark, Sparta
2,529 nations
81,064,362 NS
19,394 nukes [/quote]

Hmm, I'm seeing some objective facts here. Unless you think 3 on 1 is a bad set of odds.

[Carlton the Great]

[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='20 March 2010 - 01:43 PM' timestamp='1269106978' post='2231364']
Is that what you want?

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/TOP-CnG_War

TOP/IRON Side


CnG Side


Hmm, I'm seeing some objective facts here. Unless you think 3 on 1 is a bad set of odds.
[/quote]
3 to 1 clearly isn't enough to bring us down

[BraveNewWorld]

Well I for one am shocked at this announcement...who knew MHA was at war with anyone?

Surprised the treaty wasn't canceled by either party ages ago. Good luck to both parties, yada yada yada.

[WorkingClassRuler]

Aaannd for the hattrick ...

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='21 March 2010 - 04:39 AM' timestamp='1269106734' post='2231359']
Did I say that? I'm talking about coalition vs. coalition. When NpO withdrew TOP and company not only lost NpO's NS but their numerous allies and allies' allies.

When you joined against IRON you knew you would have support. And if you were smart enough you knew that support was larger then what IRON and company could muster. The decision (to declare) took no guts.
[/quote]

Therein lies your problem. This Coalition business. TOP created this Coalition by attaching themselves and their friend to NpO's wagon; they made the choice to turn this into a global war by putting their and IRON's considerable NS and nations and finances against our friends. We all know they made this move ONLY because they thought CnG's allies would be occupied on NpO, they opportunistically attacked CnG when THEY were on the winning side. Our entrance with Gre surely tipped the scales to a more even playing field, but at the moment we entered we were not on the winning side at all.

I'm not saying that we stormed this hill on our own, or that we put our entire alliance on the line because of it, but it was certainly no cake walk.

[Crymson]

[quote name='Working_Class_Ruler' date='20 March 2010 - 11:28 AM' timestamp='1269106096' post='2231342']
Ugh, you're honestly going with the "you have no treaties!!!" argument again? Gees. And I thought bringing up Continuum was slamming your head against a brick wall.
[/quote]

This was in response to your claim that TOP attacked friends of MHA. It is true that MHA had neither treaties nor friendships with any member of CnG.

[quote]
I've also explained in depth previously the many ways in which TOP have violated this treaty. I would hate to have to repeat myself because you don't feel like taking responsibility for your own actions. But I'm glad we can all admit that the treaty was dead to you anyway, so this cancellation shouldn't be such a problem for you, should it?
[/quote]

Though we did indeed violate the treaty, we did so in only one way. This occurred some time after MHA violated it in a way that one might argue was of far larger magnitude. Naturally, I won't attempt to excuse our own actions by citing yours, but I think you get the point.

[quote]
LOLtastic, really. I'm fairly certain that at the time of discussing FARK, it was *before* you decided to hit CnG and were in fact discussing the NpO-\m/ war. It was here that TOP discussed attacking FARK, it was here that TOP learnt we would not support entering this war.
[/quote]

We never spoke with your government regarding anything along the lines of TOP attacking FARK. You're spitting conjecture at someone who was present in the channel you're speaking of. I don't see why you feel you have grounds to tell me that something happened when I have firsthand experience that says it didn't.

[quote]
And as a result, you cut off your communications with us and did not tell us you would be attacking CnG, which completely changed our position. It was because you attacked CnG that we entered, you yourself have admitted that we wanted to stay neutral.[/quote]

You did not wish to remain neutral. You wished to defend FARK. I do not know if your government was being on the level when they said MHA's participation in defending FARK would have little effect upon the outcome of the war in general.

We did not cut off any communications with your government. As they will corroborate, we remained in close contact with them up to the time they attacked IRON; at that stage, things became a little tense between us. What we did tell your government was that because they would effectively be on the other side, it would be irresponsible to those on our side were we to share our plans with them (MHA). Our response to their plans to defend FARK was along the lines of "We're sorry to hear that, but we understand."

[quote]
Your claim that we were going to attack IRON regardless is a baseless accusation that I can only imagine you've created on idiotic assumption. I've heard mention of target lists? So what. Our military staff probably had/has lots of prepared lists in case of war, it doesn't prove jack. All your logs show is that we were prepared for the possibility of being at war with IRON, due to the way treaties would line up on either side.
[/quote]

I think that you missed the logs I posted. Please look at those. The accusation is not baseless.

[quote]
None of that proves dishonest intent on our behalf; it does not at all show that we were lying at any stage, and nor does it show anything but your extreme pettiness at actually log dumping your former allies. Congrats, Crymson. You're a log-dumper. I didn't think you could get any lower, but way to drop the bar.
[/quote]

It is sad that misleading and out-of-context claims are being made in order to make TOP look bad. It was in response to such that I posted these logs. In any event, the claim that MHA planned to preempt IRON has basis, but it---as with any such thing---could rightly be considered conjecture were there no evidence to support it.

[quote]
Because you discussed it with our Gov, we discussed the possibility of how that would keep us neutral against TOP, and how we would have to defend FARK if they were attacked by others.
[/quote]

This demonstrates no plans to attack FARK. In fact, it was our belief that the disproportionate number of declarations of war on FARK were a deliberate attempt, as part of a battle plan. to draw IRON, and perhaps TOP, into declaring war on FARK; we predicted that the battle of the other side (with CnG being included in that category) was for CnG to then enter at a propitious time a bit later on. Our preempt on CnG was an attempt to disrupt that battle plan.