Jump to content

Notice of Treaty Cancellation


Recommended Posts

Today, it is with regret that I must announce NATO's cancellation of [i]The Mostly Harmless North Atlantic Amity Agreement[/i] in accordance with Article III of our [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=63739"]dual membership treaty[/url] with The Foreign Division.

[quote name='Foreign Article 5']
[b]Article III - We look after each other[/b]

In the event either alliance is attacked by a treaty partner of the other alliance, that alliance is required to provide notice of cancellation of the other treaty and fulfill this Treaty as soon as the Cancellation period is over.
[/quote]

The cancellation period of our treaty with MHA has passed and the treaty calls for an additional three days of non-aggression, two of which have already passed, in accordance to Article 4:

[quote name='The Mostly Harmless North Atlantic Amity Agreement']
[b]Article 4[/b]

Should either party, or both parties, come to feel that their differences hold more weight than their shared history, then they may withdraw from this treaty after providing seventy-two hours advance notice of their intent to withdraw. After they have withdrawn from the treaty, neither signatory may then initiate aggressive action, as defined in Article 1, for another period of seventy-two hours.
[/quote]

NATO takes no pleasure in this action, as we have held a treatied relationship with Mostly Harmless Alliance in some form or another for over four years consecutively. Though we are allied no longer, MHA will always hold a special place in our hearts and we wish those hoopy froods the best luck in the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I am truly sad to see this happen. Most alliances haven't even been around for four years, let alone held a consecutive treatied relationship for that long.

I hope someday we can regain the distance that has come between us because as I have always loved MHA and will continue to do so despite this cancellation.

And so goes our last tie to Aqua. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is quite an interesting development... not sure if I've seen anything like it.

Not really a NATO fan, and indifferent to MHA, though I was allied to both of you back in the day. But if the evidence, as presented, is accurate (and I don't see how it can't be), then clearly MHA decided that their treaty with NATO was not worth as much as their treaty with Sparta. Shoulda stayed aqua, NATO. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kevin McDonald' timestamp='1296702447' post='2616904']
This is quite an interesting development... not sure if I've seen anything like it.

Not really a NATO fan, and indifferent to MHA, though I was allied to both of you back in the day. But if the evidence, as presented, is accurate (and I don't see how it can't be), then clearly MHA decided that their treaty with NATO was not worth as much as their treaty with Sparta. Shoulda stayed aqua, NATO. :P
[/quote]

lol, considering they had a treaty of amity with NATO and an MDP with Sparta, i should hope they picked that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kevin McDonald' timestamp='1296702447' post='2616904']
This is quite an interesting development... not sure if I've seen anything like it.

Not really a NATO fan, and indifferent to MHA, though I was allied to both of you back in the day. But if the evidence, as presented, is accurate (and I don't see how it can't be), then clearly MHA decided that their treaty with NATO was not worth as much as their treaty with Sparta. Shoulda stayed aqua, NATO. :P
[/quote]

An MDP with Sparta. Who was only attacked in response for launching an aggressive attack on NV without any treaty ties binding them to such an action, other than "it's coalition warfare."

It is unfortunate that MHA turned on a good ally like NATO.

Good luck to all parties moving forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kevin McDonald' timestamp='1296702447' post='2616904']
This is quite an interesting development... not sure if I've seen anything like it.

Not really a NATO fan, and indifferent to MHA, though I was allied to both of you back in the day. But if the evidence, as presented, is accurate (and I don't see how it can't be), then clearly MHA decided that their treaty with NATO was not worth as much as their treaty with Sparta. Shoulda stayed aqua, NATO. :P
[/quote]

Haha, you remember the GOD/NATO ODP? Those were different times.

And yes, ours was a ToA (though honestly actually an ODP) with MHA, and MHA held a MDP with Sparta...so I would expect it, especially as their treaty with Sparta is chaining and has no opt-out for Sparta being the aggressor. :P

But we would not have signed such a treaty with TFD if we were not willing to fulfill it, and I expect the same between MHA and Sparta.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Wu Tang Clan' timestamp='1296702711' post='2616910']
An MDP with Sparta. Who was only attacked in response for launching an aggressive attack on NV without any treaty ties binding them to such an action, other than "it's coalition warfare."

It is unfortunate that MHA turned on a good ally like NATO.

Good luck to all parties moving forward.
[/quote]

Listen to ^ this man!

Hail NATO! It's been a pleasure getting to know you on the Spartan front B-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Coalition warfare is a legitimate reason. If someone needs to be hit on a particular side, they should be hit. If it became the norm, we wouldn't have to bother with ghost DoWs. It's not the first time it's happened. Why gimp a war effort for dubious reasons?

Good luck to both parties anyhow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1296705194' post='2616947']
Coalition warfare is a legitimate reason. If someone needs to be hit on a particular side, they should be hit. If it became the norm, we wouldn't have to bother with ghost DoWs. It's not the first time it's happened. Why gimp a war effort for dubious reasons?

Good luck to both parties anyhow.
[/quote]


I agree, but if you truly believed that you would have attacked Rok, correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wu with the essence.

Although an artifact of history, treaty bonds between MHA and NATO will be a new era. It lasted an extremely long time, in one incarnation or another.

MHA, fare thee well. Your strength comprises the totality of your side's advantage. You are kingmaker, enjoy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck to NATO, MHA, and TFD in the future.

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1296705194' post='2616947']
Coalition warfare is a legitimate reason. If someone needs to be hit on a particular side, they should be hit. If it became the norm, we wouldn't have to bother with ghost DoWs. It's not the first time it's happened. Why gimp a war effort for dubious reasons?

Good luck to both parties anyhow.
[/quote]

I think it's ok as long as an alliance is actually engaged in that coalition first. Otherwise, you'll just see random alliances pretending to be on the winning side and screaming "coalition warfare!" which I don't think is fair. Luckily most people want to fight with their friends and not a winning coalition though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...