AIM Plan off Target? Really!

Day 2,047, 13:46 • Published in USA USA • by jadiv

The time has come to respond formally to charges made in the recent AIM off target attack piece.

First, the plan that was being followed, concentrating on the weaker aggressors occupying the eUSA and ridding the nation of those first, WAS A GOVERNMENT PLAN. It was revealed to me by Tenshibo himself a few days before the congressional elections. The plan was also presented to other AIM commanders in other forums I am told. The plan was to continue to fight keeping at least some territories free to assure as large a congress as possible and to maintain folks interest in the game. At no time were any further revisions to the plan proposed by government and in fact the plan was working. We were slowly throwing some of the small fish out of the pool before the task of taking on the sharks!

The attack against AIM, that the actions of liberating these smaller aggressor’s holdings merely benefited Serbia, Poland and Hungary by allowing them to continue NEs and further occupy the eUS, is unfounded. It was a government plan from the beginning.

Now is the claim that only Serbia, Poland and Hungary gain from this expulsion of lessor aggressors accurate anyhow? I would argue not. First the goal is to move toward a day when there are zero occupiers, we all I guess would agree to that. Short of some master stroke that could eliminate all opponents simultaneously, it would be expected that we would eliminate one, then another then another. Starting at 7 occupiers and reducing that to 3 is progress!

Now holding so few states does create a problem, they are so few and in some cases isolated so any newly liberated state would probably be next to one of the big three. This fact was as true when the plan was proposed as it is now, but did not stop the government from advocating the plan in the first place. Further the plan was working, we could almost indefinitely continue to free states as they were taken if we put our efforts on that task. As of yesterday morning when this hit the fan, we actually had more states than we had at the point that the plan was proposed, and more resources for those of us that make things.

Is it better to have 3 occupiers than 7? Well in a way, yes. Take the example of Taiwan, with territories in eUSA, they were gaining resource bonus points. With those same territories in Poland, Hungary or Serbia hands, those resources are just redundancies of those they already have. Less TWO countries have less bonuses with an occupation of the US by only the big three.

One argument that we hear is we have a new strategy, we want to be wiped. This would cancel all NE’s against us. Then it would be easier to come back thru RW campaigns. Really! Don’t you think that at some point when we got a state or two free that the bordering states would have at least one TWO occupier that then could once again NE us? In the end we will have to beat current occupiers in direct battles and against NE’s. Does anyone really think that after a wipe we would be able to win back 51 states without being named a NE at least a dozen times?

It has also been suggested that this misguided approach, mistakenly stated as having come from AIM, detracts from our ability to help our allies. Nonsense, first if our common enemies are not NEing us, they will NE them! The best thing we might be able to do for our allies is to keep the NE target in our backs to lessen their load. Now I am not saying we shouldn’t send help, we should; particularly when we can make a difference. But allowing our country to be wiped will not help our allies!