An MHAnnouncement

[scytale]

I have not fully read all the pages so far and although I am not gov, I would like to at least personally apologize to CN for some of the unMHA remarks made by some of our members.

Good luck and best wishes to TOP. Let’s hope that when all the craziness of this insane war ends, we may be able to mend wounds one day.

[Timeline]

[quote name='Believland' date='20 March 2010 - 06:59 PM' timestamp='1269111544' post='2231434']
What are you talking about? Somewhere you must have messed up your time line. It has a lot to do with \m/-NpO war. TOP did a preemptive strike against CnG, because NpO/TOP/the rest thought that CnG were going to side against their treaty partners in NpO. Shortly after NpO gave \m/ white peace. TOP was not knowledgeable about \m/-NpO's peace talks and if they were, I doubt this situation would have happened.


MHA, you share as much of the blame you're putting on TOP.
[/quote]


NpO and \M/ peace Posted 29 January 2010 - 05:34 AM

TOP and co. DoW on C&G Posted 29 January 2010 - 04:47 AM

As you can see, TOP and NpO gov was online, who's fault is it that on the day TOP go to battle they did not talk to NpO ?

anyway moving on to the next point.

"TOP did a preemptive strike against CnG" Call it what you want, TOP nor was C&G in any active wars, you can guess all you want on who would do what, the bottomline is TOP and Co. attacked C&G causing another global war.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Timeline' date='20 March 2010 - 10:04 PM' timestamp='1269122671' post='2231557']
NpO and \M/ peace Posted 29 January 2010 - 05:34 AM

TOP and co. DoW on C&G Posted 29 January 2010 - 04:47 AM

As you can see, TOP and NpO gov was online, who's fault is it that on the day TOP go to battle they did not talk to NpO ?
[/quote]

Obviously NpO for not informing TOP they were working on Peace so that TOP would stop enacting the plans they both agreed to. TOP had huge nations, huge warchests and large ammounts of tech.. but I don't think they could read minds yet.

[MCRABT]

[quote name='Shamshir' date='20 March 2010 - 08:19 PM' timestamp='1269116344' post='2231475']
They no longer wanted to be tied to TOP hence why the treaty was dropped. Many are sore over how TOP got involved in the conflict and it's my belief that had they have become involved the usual way things would have lined up differently.

[/quote]

Perhaps, but then we are speculating. No matter the nature of the entrance they would have been on different sides and undoubtedly the aid issue would still have arisen; the relationship would have still have been placed under strain. As for the painting a new target comment I would say that is hardly valid when MHA members were dragging this topic into the dirt on the first page before anyone in TOP had even had the chance to respond. It's hardly surprising then that this topic turned out the way it has.

[Bob Janova]

Sad but pretty much inevitable once MHA and TOP had chosen their sides. It seems the art of being able to be on different sides of a war and not be hostile to each other is gone.

[MCRABT]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='21 March 2010 - 01:36 AM' timestamp='1269135347' post='2231716']
Sad but pretty much inevitable once MHA and TOP had chosen their sides. It seems the art of being able to be on different sides of a war and not be hostile to each other is gone.
[/quote]

It would seem common respect altogether as a valued commodity in this game is on it's way out the door.

[Il Principe]

[quote name='Vend3tta' date='20 March 2010 - 12:43 AM' 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]
We had an [b]MD[/b]a[b]P[/b] not an MD[b]A[/b]P. Since they attacked and we did not/could not agree with their CB, the treaty did not apply to this situation. We had not obligation and no wish to join them in their attack. Since they were the onces attacking we could not activate the defence part of our treaty.

[quote name='Xavii' date='20 March 2010 - 02:59 AM' timestamp='1269050331' post='2230825']
I actually thought this had happened some time ago, the hostility towards TOP, at least with the members of MHA was quite obvious pretty early into the war.[/quote]

Well most members wanted it to be cancelled sooner since they saw the massive aid chains directed at GGA, aid chains with the one and only goal of facilitating GGA to fight us for a few more days.


[quote name='Believland' date='20 March 2010 - 05:05 AM' timestamp='1269057910' post='2230940']
MHA, you really weren't close to TOP. [b]TOP always thought of you as Gre's ally more than TOP's.[/b] 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
[/quote]

Then why were you as stupid as to aggressively attack an ally of Gremlins when you knew we were that tight. Yeah they went "paperless" but you have read the same thread as me on this same forum that stated Gremlins would defend MK! Offcourse I do not know about my former alliance mates and government, but I personaly would have defended TOP till the end would they have been attacked. So I really regret this circumstances that drove our alliances apart.


[quote name='SinOfNemesis' date='20 March 2010 - 06:07 AM' timestamp='1269061609' post='2231015']
The coalition aid was started by our side on Feb 2nd. By the time it was fully operating, Crymson was already out of the office. So if you discussed it with Crymson, he might not known what was going on. The aid was set up under my terms as Grand Hospitaller [which is MoIA basically]. So I guess you tried to clear it with the wrong person, as it never reached my ear about MHA being unhappy. Fark came directly to me, and like Jenko already said, it was dealt with. Grems voiced their opinions also. But from what I see, you guys already decided to cancel this treaty way before the aiding of other alliances started.[/quote]

Well I do not know about our government, but us members started to be very uneasy with this treaty when we saw the news about your aid chain, NOT before!

[quote name='SinOfNemesis' date='20 March 2010 - 06:24 AM' timestamp='1269062653' post='2231040']
Do you have proof that we were aiding only those nations that were fighting MHA? From what I see, we were sending aid to those who asked for it.
[/quote]

We were the only alliance GGA was fighting. Where else would they have needed it for?

[quote name='Alterego' date='20 March 2010 - 11:36 AM' timestamp='1269081347' post='2231187']
Apologies to MHA the bravery shown by fighting IRON with 16+ other alliances is commendable. Your massive loss of NS is a testament to your struggle.
[/quote]

Well actually MHA has lost 3+ mill NS. I myself do think that is a massive loss of NS.

[Iamrecognized]

I am very disappointed by the way this discussion has gone, and especially by the way that some MHA members have been posting, mostly early on, but still. This is not the MHA way of doing things.

Good luck to TOP in the future.

[Il Principe]

[quote name='D34th' date='20 March 2010 - 06:41 AM' timestamp='1269063642' post='2231065']
May be I'm wrong but I never saw MHA canceling a treaty with the winning side.
[/quote]

Methinks you are wrong there.

After the Karma War we cancelled on TORN, Athens and Rok. As far as I remember those were the only treaties we cancelled. Only one of those was on the losing side off the Karma War.

[Louis Balfour]

[quote name='Alterego' date='20 March 2010 - 05:11 AM' timestamp='1269079867' post='2231176']
One alliance put their infra before friends and one didnt MHA are the new ODN.
[/quote]

Aww, shucks... Some people just can't keep our name out of their mouth.

[Stonewall Jaxon]

[quote name='Il Principe' date='20 March 2010 - 09:10 PM' timestamp='1269137404' post='2231755']
Since they attacked and we did not/could not agree with their CB, the treaty did not apply to this situation.
[/quote]

Unless your treaties have a "treaty only applies when we agree with your 'CB'" clause built into them, this is pure cowardice.

[Alekhine]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' date='20 March 2010 - 10:39 PM' timestamp='1269139173' post='2231773']
Unless your treaties have a "treaty only applies when we agree with your 'CB'" clause built into them, this is pure cowardice.
[/quote]

Well, opting not to activate an oA clause on an aggressive action hardly counts as cowardice.

[nutkase]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' date='21 March 2010 - 10:39 AM' timestamp='1269139173' post='2231773']
Unless your treaties have a "treaty only applies when we agree with your 'CB'" clause built into them, this is pure cowardice.
[/quote]

Really, are you serious???

Your saying that MHA should be mindless meat shields, defend aggressive action without cause and let others dictate when we go to war?

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='Queen Hoopdy the 1st' date='19 March 2010 - 06:58 PM' timestamp='1269039491' post='2230621']
Dear TOP,

You want us to make a choice? Ok. We like Fark better.

Kthxbye,
Me
[/quote]
[IMG]http://www.nataliedee.com/062308/look-at-me-im-ruining-the-joke-guys.jpg[/IMG]

Yea. You're cool. This helps the situation completely.

Edited March 21, 2010 by Ejayrazz

[Stonewall Jaxon]

[quote name='nutkase' date='20 March 2010 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1269140212' post='2231786']
Really, are you serious???

Your saying that MHA should be mindless meat shields, defend aggressive action without cause and let others dictate when we go to war?
[/quote]

You really are ridiculous. When you sign a treaty with an alliance and vow to protect them in a war, you are personally signing a contract, and unless you place no conditions on the contract, no such conditions exist, and to later invent conditions in an attempt to nullify the treaty makes your prior signature an outright lie, and your actions are completely cowardly. In fact, by pledging your military support to another alliance when war is declared on them, you are letting another alliance dictate when you go to war. Don't act as if that's somehow a surprise to you. When you sign with an alliance, you're not signing to defend only their justifiable or, in your case, beneficial military actions. In your case, you've blatantly ignored treaties and/or considered them null and void because their actions were not beneficial to you, which makes you liars because you're violating a contract which bears your name. There's no escaping it.

[img]http://hcliberal.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/you-lie-2-2.jpg[/img]

Perhaps your next treaty's cancellation clause should read "This treaty may be cancelled retroactively should MHA consider upholding its treaty obligations no longer pursuant to its benefit and/or 'beliefs.'"

Edit: Sorry for the brevity of this post. The quoted post is so fundamentally wrong, I could write a book of material. It's just horrible to think that such thought is considered acceptable in [i]any[/i] portion of this universe.

Edited March 21, 2010 by Stonewall Jaxon

[StevieG]

[quote name='Timeline' date='20 March 2010 - 07:01 PM' timestamp='1269068473' post='2231113']
Someone needs to check their facts before posting, TOP - IRON - TORN - TSO - FEAR had made no DOW vs any alliance at war with anyone during the \m/ vs NpO war, (going by Wiki) what TOP and co did was a first strike attack on C&G the same Day \M/ and NpO gained white peace, shortly after the rest of the \M/ vs NpO war gained peace.

Yes the day \m/ vs NpO war ended TOP and co attacked C&G with no CB other then, "we did it before you did it to us" the only problem is TOP failed.

So yes TOP started this war.
[/quote]

Yes, it was a pre-emptive assault on those who we would find ourselves at war with anyways by coming in, in defence of NSO. TOP and co did not start the war, that was started by the NpO. The reason for the pre-emptive assault was a strategical decision which backfired spectacularly.

The NpO-\m/ war ended AFTER the initial assault on C&G by TOP and co. And there are even logs showing that Archon got \m/ to speed up their efforts to gain peace so as to isolate TOP and co.

[nutkase]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' date='21 March 2010 - 11:15 AM' timestamp='1269141290' post='2231810']
You really are ridiculous. When you sign a treaty with an alliance and vow to protect them in a war, you are personally signing a contract, and unless you place no conditions on the contract, no such conditions exist, and to later invent conditions in an attempt to nullify the treaty makes your prior signature an outright lie, and your actions are completely cowardly. In fact, by pledging your military support to another alliance when war is declared on them, you are letting another alliance dictate when you go to war. Don't act as if that's somehow a surprise to you. When you sign with an alliance, you're not signing to defend only their justifiable or, in your case, beneficial military actions. In your case, you've blatantly ignored treaties and/or considered them null and void because their actions were not beneficial to you, which makes you liars because you're violating a contract which bears your name. There's no escaping it.

[/quote]

Don't let the fact that the Optional Aggression part of the treaty was not activated and is part of the "contract" get in your way. Yes we signed a treaty that said if TOP was attacked without cause we come come to their aid, and belief us we would but it also stated that we did not have to support a aggressive action which is under the oAP part of the treaty something that even NpO acknowledged when its defensive pacts with MK were activated. Also I think your getting mixed up, pledging you military support behind someone is not letting them dictate when you go to war as they made the choice of that. When a alliances comes and demands that they support them in a aggressive action, then THAT sir is dictating.

Another signatory also ignored and/or considered it null or void. So you cannot seriously belief MHA was the only ones to break this treaty, something we already acknowledge.

[fallin]

[quote]Perhaps your next treaty's cancellation clause should read "This treaty may be cancelled retroactively should MHA consider upholding its treaty obligations no longer pursuant to its benefit and/or 'beliefs.'"[/quote]

Perhaps our next treaty should read,"This treaty may be cancelled retroactively unless Stonewall Jaxon's every expectation of MHA be satisfied" I suppose that would make you happy.

Your opinion of us, is not and will never be, a determinant in our foreign policy.

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='Timeline' date='20 March 2010 - 05:04 PM' timestamp='1269122671' post='2231557']
NpO and \M/ peace Posted 29 January 2010 - 05:34 AM

TOP and co. DoW on C&G Posted 29 January 2010 - 04:47 AM
[/quote]

considering your username i'd think you'd be a helluva lot better with historical CN facts. the DoW's were roughly just before update. TORN's specifically being 1/28/10 11:57pm. the anouncment from polaris and whatnot was posted 1/29/10 12:34am. that's over a half an hour after everything went down.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79444&st=0

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79454

[Lusitan]

[quote name='nutkase' date='21 March 2010 - 02:57 AM' timestamp='1269140212' post='2231786']
Really, are you serious???

Your saying that MHA should be mindless meat shields, defend aggressive action without cause and [b]let others dictate when we go to war?[/b]
[/quote]

You sort of give away that kind of sovereignity.. at least in theory... on the moment you sign the treaty.

[AndyDe]

[quote name='Lusitan' date='21 March 2010 - 03:41 PM' timestamp='1269142880' post='2231832']
You sort of give away that kind of sovereignity.. at least in theory... on the moment you sign the treaty.
[/quote]

Please tell me if I am wrong. but most of the time the first clause normally states that both partners keep their sovereignty.

[nutkase]

[quote name='Lusitan' date='21 March 2010 - 11:41 AM' timestamp='1269142880' post='2231832']
You sort of give away that kind of sovereignity.. at least in theory... on the moment you sign the treaty.
[/quote]

Well in a MDAP maybe, but I don't see how in a MDoAP. Feel free to elaborate if you like.

EDIT: and what Andy said

Edited March 21, 2010 by nutkase

[Stonewall Jaxon]

[quote name='nutkase' date='20 March 2010 - 10:45 PM' timestamp='1269143127' post='2231836']
Well in a MDAP maybe, but I don't see how in a MDoAP. Feel free to elaborate if you like.
[/quote]

You're not giving away your sovereignty, but you are contractually agreeing to being drawn into an ally's defensive war whether you like it or not. Of course, this differs from a direct loss of sovereignty because, technically speaking, you still [b]can[/b] simply refuse to honor the treaty and your word, committing a horribly cowardly and dishonest act, also known as "pulling an MHA."

[fallin]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' date='21 March 2010 - 03:59 AM' timestamp='1269143932' post='2231845']
You're not giving away your sovereignty, but you are contractually agreeing to being drawn into an ally's defensive war whether you like it or not. Of course, this differs from a direct loss of sovereignty because, technically speaking, you still [b]can[/b] simply refuse to honor the treaty and your word, committing a horribly cowardly and dishonest act, also known as "pulling an MHA."
[/quote]

One would argue that supporting the attack on C&G would be no less dishonourable. Would you prefer that? That MHA supported a sudden and unprovoked attack on an entire bloc?

Of course you would.

We're only "horribly cowardly and dishonest" when we're fighting on the other side.

[Choader]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' date='20 March 2010 - 08:59 PM' timestamp='1269143932' post='2231845']
You're not giving away your sovereignty, but you are contractually agreeing to being drawn into an ally's defensive war whether you like it or not. Of course, this differs from a direct loss of sovereignty because, technically speaking, you still [b]can[/b] simply refuse to honor the treaty and your word, committing a horribly cowardly and dishonest act, also known as "pulling an MHA."
[/quote]
Since when is TOP in a defensive war?