71
State Dept: Alliance Discussions Underway
Earlier today, as advised by Proggypop (Deputy Secretary of State for Alliance Creation) and Leroy Combs (Secretary of Defense), I entered into a meeting with a plethora of other nations regarding the formation of a new alliance. This meeting went little beyond the planning phase and we haven't begun to really get into in-depth negotiations. However, I do have a few facts to present:
1. The United States and Spain both advocate an alliance based on a "defense first" philosophy. We will work to protect our allies, home and abroad, from outside invasion and slowly work to fight back against other alliances.
2. The alliance will be, at the start, 5-7 member nations. The United States will not accept anything more or less.
3. The alliance must respect the wishes of other members. If Country X wants to attack Country Y, they are allowed to do so, but don't come begging for help when they beat you back.
4. There are a few "essential" member nations involved. The two sure-fire member nations, for the United States, are us and Spain. After that, we value Canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and many other nations. We value Spain as an ally not only for their strategic location, strategic resources, and powerful military, but also their like-minded approach to the game.
ATLANTIS failed, seemingly, because of a disconnect between member nations stemming from long droughts of miscommunication. It failed because of member nations having different ideologies and the alliance basically split into many different parts. Pro-Sweden, Pro-Germany, neutral (following the United States' example, as you can see. Many former ATLANTIS nations have now declared themselves neutral) and other splintering denominations. ATLANTIS did not fail because of Sweden versus Germany; it failed because of a longer disconnect between all member nations, USA included.
In the new alliance, we will be looking for close friends, like-minded allies, and strong, stable countries. The countries of the world like South Africa, Israel, and others will still be supported, just not officially allowed in the alliance at the start the beginning. We will encourage the joining of the new alliance based on "protectorate" status, and promote new members when we find that the alliance is stable enough to accept new members.
This is still in a proposal phase and we have just begun the long and arduous process of negotiations with so many other nations. However, it is the continued goal of this administration to provide the public with real-time information on the events of the nation. I hope to continue to bring you all information regarding the development of this alliance.
Also, I present what I now call "Tradition Picture(s)":
HR
Secretary of State
1. The United States and Spain both advocate an alliance based on a "defense first" philosophy. We will work to protect our allies, home and abroad, from outside invasion and slowly work to fight back against other alliances.
2. The alliance will be, at the start, 5-7 member nations. The United States will not accept anything more or less.
3. The alliance must respect the wishes of other members. If Country X wants to attack Country Y, they are allowed to do so, but don't come begging for help when they beat you back.
4. There are a few "essential" member nations involved. The two sure-fire member nations, for the United States, are us and Spain. After that, we value Canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and many other nations. We value Spain as an ally not only for their strategic location, strategic resources, and powerful military, but also their like-minded approach to the game.
ATLANTIS failed, seemingly, because of a disconnect between member nations stemming from long droughts of miscommunication. It failed because of member nations having different ideologies and the alliance basically split into many different parts. Pro-Sweden, Pro-Germany, neutral (following the United States' example, as you can see. Many former ATLANTIS nations have now declared themselves neutral) and other splintering denominations. ATLANTIS did not fail because of Sweden versus Germany; it failed because of a longer disconnect between all member nations, USA included.
In the new alliance, we will be looking for close friends, like-minded allies, and strong, stable countries. The countries of the world like South Africa, Israel, and others will still be supported, just not officially allowed in the alliance at the start the beginning. We will encourage the joining of the new alliance based on "protectorate" status, and promote new members when we find that the alliance is stable enough to accept new members.
This is still in a proposal phase and we have just begun the long and arduous process of negotiations with so many other nations. However, it is the continued goal of this administration to provide the public with real-time information on the events of the nation. I hope to continue to bring you all information regarding the development of this alliance.
Also, I present what I now call "Tradition Picture(s)":
HR
Secretary of State
Facebook
Twitter
furrymaxx
I thought we still said it was way to early for a new alliance
Tom Jane supports our Southern Allies and their gifts. If only I could get my kids back, then I'd send them to America, so they'd grow up like fine young women you depict.
sounds great
>The countries of the world like South Africa, Israel, and others will still be supported, just not officially allowed in the alliance at the start the beginning. We will encourage the joining of the new alliance based on "protectorate" status,
Eh, not good. It should be, "Okay, your in the alliance, we value your vote as much as anyone elses, as long as you contribute to your fullest" The damn "passive, trial etc etc" member is part of what killed Atlantis. It should be either your in or your out. No half assing it.
They are not in. We protect them from invasion, but make no mistake, they are not in. Too many voices creates needless delay. We need to keep it short, sweet, and to the point. Once we are stable, we can expand.
And also, Chisholm, if you'll notice:
>This meeting went little beyond the planning phase and we haven't begun to really get into in-depth negotiations
Therefore, we're not close to actually committing to an alliance. We will remain neutral for a time, as I said.
Sounds like a great idea. I'm definitely liking the possible nations involved. Good luck!
I see great things if this goes through. Aliiance names yet?
Neutrality sucks!
"We protect them from invasion..."
Will we really?
Or will we take them over?
I am voting this up, with the expectation that we will see more brunettes.
Yeah, this is Atlantis 2.0, right down to the protected states. I suggest that when the Super Friends forms, you advise the protected states to form a their own alliance, just so we can know who's who. It'll also help them organize their efforts
SITNALTA?
Voted. Thanks for the update.
Emerick, these only represent my wishes for a new alliance. They are not set in stone nor will they be the official protocol for any new alliance. They still need to be, as we all love to say, negotiated. Which hasn't begun yet. Contrary to popular belief.
Thanks for keeping us informed, Mr. Secratary.
IMO, a new alliance shouldn't just be an updated ATLANTIS. The alliance should be based on RMs, with the memebers being able to trade freely so that all will be able to have access to the resources needed to develop and defend militarily. For example, Spain would be a great ally if they dropped their import taxes. New alliance could trade embargo those outside of the alliance. For nations to be in the alliance, they must agree to defend other members of the alliance from attack. Aside from diamonds and iron, eUS has a lot of resources and large population that others would like to have as allies. This would get rid of our iron problem and potentially form an alliance much stronger than the old anti-PEACE alliances were. I'd love to be involved in further discussions regarding alliance-forming .
Ooooo pictures.....
Both alliances that Spain has been apart of have failed. ¯\(°_o)/¯
The SPANGLISH Alliance?
Great ideas!
@MC, America's track record is even worse...
"We will work to protect our allies". Why didn't we do that with Germany then?
Voted for the girls!
What a ....?
I could not get past the pictures to read the article....
I think that is HR's new tactic, making friends (and policy) through pictures. Just post a couple pics, and people will vote.
And, congrats, HR on the win! (now, I will try to read the article without getting caught with those pictures on my screen....)
Great job, HR. I think this is a step in the right direction. Keep up the phenomenal job!
Thanks for the information. I don't know how I missed this when it was published, but now I better understand what is/may be happening with Malaysia.