An MHAnnouncement

[Sephiroth]

This treaty cancellation was far overdue since it lost meaning long ago, problem with MHA's way of handling treaties is they still hold onto them as they destroy the few allies fighting in a lopsided on the side of their treaty partner not getting help from them. In the Karma War they held their treaty with NPO throughout the war as they entered on the other side on the winning side, then did the same to TOP here. Both times the treaty was dead before MHA entered on the opposing side in the war attacking allies of the MDP partner as they had no intention of doing anything with it.

[Timeline]

[quote name='StevieG' date='21 March 2010 - 03:26 AM' timestamp='1269141992' post='2231818']
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.
[/quote]

A pre-emptive assault on a group of alliances at peace by another group of alliances at peace.

What part of that do you not understand. NO ONE within the first strikes on C&G was at war with anyone from the NpO vs \M/ war, you started a whole new war, I still can not for the life of me understand how you can not see that, SO WHAT if grub gave you the go ahead, grub does not run bob, nor does he have any treaties with those that attacked C&G.

As to Archon, could it be that he was working on getting NpO peace, i mean after all MK do have a treaty with NpO ?



[quote name='President Sitruk' date='21 March 2010 - 03:41 AM' timestamp='1269142863' post='2231831']
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
[/quote]

As i am sure you know, time zones across the world are not the same, now becuase of where I live, update is 6am, therefore the posts was made at time i stated, the only thing i failed on was to add in there (this is GMT time), forgive me I forget that some people feel the world spins around them.

[Stonewall Jaxon]

[quote name='Choader' date='20 March 2010 - 11:03 PM' timestamp='1269144173' post='2231852']
Since when is TOP in a defensive war?
[/quote]

[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79717"]http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79717[/url]

If I'm not mistaken, didn't the treaty state that a declaration on one alliance is considered a declaration on both? If MHA had conditions that would cause them to consider the treaty null and void, they should have mentioned those conditions. In the modern era, many alliances include "non-chaining" clauses to make their contracts accurate and honest.

Edited March 21, 2010 by Stonewall Jaxon

[fallin]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' date='21 March 2010 - 04:06 AM' timestamp='1269144399' post='2231856']
[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79717"]http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79717[/url]

If I'm not mistaken, didn't the treaty state that a declaration on one alliance is considered a declaration on both?
[/quote]

I like how you conveniently ignore that this war started with a TOP/IRON DoW on C&G.

[Stonewall Jaxon]

[quote name='fallin' date='20 March 2010 - 11:02 PM' timestamp='1269144121' post='2231849']
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.
[/quote]

I didn't expressly pledge unconditional military support to TOP whenever war was declared on them, you did. If you did not have the intention of upholding your word in the first place, why not state that in the treaty?

[quote]I like how you conveniently ignore that this war started with a TOP/IRON DoW on C&G. [/quote]

My apologies; I did not see the 2.3 clause in the TOP treaty. I'm glad MHA included the clause this time; such clauses were missing in the Karma War.

Edited March 21, 2010 by Stonewall Jaxon

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' date='21 March 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1269144399' post='2231856']
[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79717"]http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79717[/url]

If I'm not mistaken, didn't the treaty state that a declaration on one alliance is considered a declaration on both? If MHA had conditions that would cause them to consider the treaty null and void, they should have mentioned those conditions. In the modern era, many alliances include "non-chaining" clauses to make their contracts accurate and honest.
[/quote]

Forgetting for a moment that MHA and Sparta are allies, the Harmless Paradox Treaty did in fact have "non-chaining" clauses and the like.

[quote]4. Defense obligations shall not be triggered should the one signatory become defensively engaged via any of the following: as a result of other offensive military action, as a result of spying, or as a result of clear severe provocation of another alliance. These shall all be deemed as action having resulted from offensive action by that signatory, and thus Article 2.1 will not apply; entry into the conflict will be optional, as per article 2.6. [/quote]

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='Timeline' date='20 March 2010 - 11:05 PM' timestamp='1269144295' post='2231854']
As i am sure you know, time zones across the world are not the same, now becuase of where I live, update is 6am, therefore the posts was made at time i stated, the only thing i failed on was to add in there (this is GMT time), forgive me I forget that some people feel the world spins around them.
[/quote]

i just conveniently live in the same time zone as ADMIN, beloved by all, but it doesnt change the fact that you were trying to say titty launched the attacks AFTER peace.

ps, i wish update was 6am, be a hell of a lot easier to run things at update than midnight when i have to work.

[fallin]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' date='21 March 2010 - 04:10 AM' timestamp='1269144598' post='2231861']
I didn't expressly pledge unconditional military support to TOP whenever war was declared on them, you did. If you did not have the intention of upholding your word in the first place, why not state that in the treaty?



I did not ignore it; it's simply irrelevant In a similar vein, I like how you didn't mention the Great Patriotic War.
[/quote]

We don't support the initial war on C&G. We didn't choose to activate the oA clause in our TOP treaty.

The truth is, every other supplementary DoW from C&G and allies are a result of TOP's own actions.

If we didn't support the initial war of aggression, why on earth would we shelter TOP from the consequences of their actions?

Edited March 21, 2010 by fallin

[Stonewall Jaxon]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='20 March 2010 - 11:10 PM' timestamp='1269144610' post='2231862']
Forgetting for a moment that MHA and Sparta are allies, the Harmless Paradox Treaty did in fact have "non-chaining" clauses and the like.
[/quote]

Yes, I realize that now; I was simply going off of the arguments of MHA members here, which is essentially that an MDP does not apply when a "CB" isn't valid.

[quote]why on earth would we shelter TOP from the consequences of their actions?
[/quote]

And here, fallin, is the great protector of the coward. Had someone declared war on TOP from a trumped-up CB and gained numerical advantage, you would have supported the action because their fabricated "CB" would have voided all of your treaty obligations, in your eyes. Thankfully, TOP saved you that trouble and preemptively started the war. Either way, MHA will never lose its numerical advantage. In all honestly, where were these convenient morals when you ere fighting GATO, or FAN?

Edited March 21, 2010 by Stonewall Jaxon

[fallin]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' date='21 March 2010 - 04:19 AM' timestamp='1269145141' post='2231871']
Yes, I realize that now; I was simply going off of the arguments of MHA members here, which is essentially that an MDP does not apply when a "CB" isn't valid.
[/quote]

I hope you realize that we have 16 pages worth of argument because you weren't wearing your reading glasses.

[Stonewall Jaxon]

[quote name='fallin' date='20 March 2010 - 11:21 PM' timestamp='1269145243' post='2231872']
I hope you realize that we have 16 pages worth of argument because you weren't wearing your reading glasses.
[/quote]

Not at all. I entered originally to point out your history as the worst allies in CN, and I entered because of your member's ridiculous comment on page 15. Also, I added this to the post you quoted:

[quote]And here, fallin, is the great protector of the coward. Had someone declared war on TOP from a trumped-up CB and gained numerical advantage, you would have supported the action because their fabricated "CB" would have voided all of your treaty obligations, in your eyes. Thankfully, TOP saved you that trouble and preemptively started the war. Either way, MHA will never lose its numerical advantage. In all honestly, where were these convenient morals when you ere fighting GATO, or FAN?
[/quote]

[fallin]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' date='21 March 2010 - 04:23 AM' timestamp='1269145381' post='2231875']
Not at all. I entered originally to point out your history as the worst allies in CN, and I entered because of your member's ridiculous comment on page 15. Also, I added this to the post you quoted:
[/quote]

I would argue that several alliances, including Fark and Gramlins would beg to differ.

[fallin]

[quote]
And here, fallin, is the great protector of the coward. Had someone declared war on TOP from a trumped-up CB and gained numerical advantage, you would have supported the action because their fabricated "CB" would have voided all of your treaty obligations, in your eyes. Thankfully, TOP saved you that trouble and preemptively started the war. Either way, MHA will never lose its numerical advantage. In all honestly, where were these convenient morals when you ere fighting GATO, or FAN?[/quote]

Where was I when MHA was fighting FAN and GATO?

I was in GUN of course.

[AndyDe]

Don't get me wrong. but I believe that FAN was spying on MHA at the time. and that is a valid CB.

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='fallin' date='21 March 2010 - 12:15 AM' timestamp='1269144910' post='2231868']
If we didn't support the initial war of aggression, why on earth would we shelter TOP from the consequences of their actions?
[/quote]

Wow, beyond the obvious subjectivity of the first statement, lemme address the second one. I'm just gonna put it out there, but perhaps you would want to protect TOP because they were "friends". I mean, clearly from this thread it seems like that was not the case, but a pretty good portion of us think friendships should be the basis for treaties, otherwise treaties are just tactical. If they were your friends perhaps you would want to "shelter TOP" because you don't like to see your buddies to get curb stomped.

[fallin]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='21 March 2010 - 04:37 AM' timestamp='1269146258' post='2231891']
Wow, beyond the obvious subjectivity of the first statement, lemme address the second one. I'm just gonna put it out there, but perhaps you would want to protect TOP because they were "friends". I mean, clearly from this thread it seems like that was not the case, but a pretty good portion of us think friendships should be the basis for treaties, otherwise treaties are just tactical. If they were your friends perhaps you would want to "shelter TOP" because you don't like to see your buddies to get curb stomped.
[/quote]


Yeah, we don't wanna see Gramlins and Fark get curbstomped. That much you got right.

[Stonewall Jaxon]

[quote name='AndyDe' date='20 March 2010 - 11:37 PM' timestamp='1269146203' post='2231889']
Don't get me wrong. but I believe that FAN was spying on MHA at the time. and that is a valid CB.
[/quote]

But when the Karma War came along, Hegemonic actions, up until then supported by "hoopdy froods," became unacceptable? Please

[Xiphosis]

[quote name='Working_Class_Ruler' date='19 March 2010 - 05:33 PM' timestamp='1269048763' post='2230799']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.
[/quote]

Pretty much all that needed to be said. Class move MHA.

[nutkase]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' date='21 March 2010 - 12:19 PM' timestamp='1269145141' post='2231871']
Yes, I realize that now; I was simply going off of the arguments of MHA members here, which is essentially that an MDP does not apply when a "CB" isn't valid.
[/quote]

A MDP does not apply when one party conducts a offensive war. The only treaties that would apply would be ones that contain Mandatory Aggression pacts.

[fallin]

Gentlemen, walk a moment in our skin.

MHA was tied to both sides of the conflict via our TOP MDoAP and our Fark/Harmlins treaties.

Here we have TOP, toddling along with an aggressive DoW on C&G and as part of a larger conflict, landing on the side opposed to our Fark/Gramlins/Sparta allies.

Honestly, if you were in our shoes, what would you have done?

TOP/IRON's actions put us between a rock and a hard place. We made our choices. It wasn't particularly pleasant for us. Don't blame us if the decisions we made in life weren't to your whims and fancies.

[Stonewall Jaxon]

[quote name='nutkase' date='20 March 2010 - 11:42 PM' timestamp='1269146534' post='2231898']
A MDP does not apply when one party conducts a offensive war. The only treaties that would apply would be ones that contain Mandatory Aggression pacts.
[/quote]

An MDP applies whenever one alliance declares war on one of the signatories, unless a clause within the treaty creates certain conditions that nullify the defensive obligations. It's simply the terms of a contract, end of story.

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='fallin' date='21 March 2010 - 12:39 AM' timestamp='1269146358' post='2231893']
Yeah, we don't wanna see Gramlins and Fark get curbstomped. That much you got right.
[/quote]

No, understood. I'm not saying that you were wrong to go in on the other side. I mean ultimately when you have people on both sides of the web, you make a choice or you stay neutral. My issue is, you should at least feel a little conflicted for god sake. Your point shouldn't be "omg they were wrong and we decided to let them get punished". It should be "duty called but how can we help you out diplomatically in your time of need."

Edited March 21, 2010 by Lord Curzon

[fallin]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='21 March 2010 - 04:48 AM' timestamp='1269146908' post='2231903']
No, understood. I'm not saying that you were wrong to go in on the other side. I mean ultimately when you have people on both sides of the web, you make a choice or you stay neutral. My issue is, you should at least feel a little conflicted for god sake. Your point shouldn't be "omg they were wrong and we decided to let them get punished". It should be "duty called but how can we help you out diplomatically in your time of need."
[/quote]

In all due respect sir, I don't believe staying neutral was an option for us. If we really did stay neutral, I can just imagine all the "zOMG MHA INFRA-HUGGERS" comments coming in.

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' date='20 March 2010 - 09:48 PM' timestamp='1269146872' post='2231902']
An MDP applies whenever one alliance declares war on one of the signatories, unless a clause within the treaty creates certain conditions that nullify the defensive obligations. It's simply the terms of a contract, end of story.
[/quote]

There's a non-chaining clause in the TOP-MHA treaty.

[fallin]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' date='21 March 2010 - 04:48 AM' timestamp='1269146872' post='2231902']
An MDP applies whenever one alliance declares war on one of the signatories, unless a clause within the treaty creates certain conditions that nullify the defensive obligations. It's simply the terms of a contract, end of story.
[/quote]

Thats a ideological/theoretical issue that has no place here since its been decisively affirmed that the MHA-TOP treaty is non-chaining. I'd love to debate with ya bout it in another time and place, just that this particular argument has little relevance in this context.