Victory for eAmerica
•
by FernandoPM
With the recent creation of US-AIM, along with their incredible success, eAmerica has to realize something. If we stand together, nothing, not even TWO, can possibly stand in our way. Though I may disagree with how US-AIM is not in any way co-operating with the eUS government, the idea of a highly powerful coalition of MUs, fighting together against our enemies and protecting our allies seems like a great one.
Many things keep us from achieving this united front. One of the main ones is, of course, how divided the eUS has become due to the clash between the UNITY parties and the AFA and its allies. The clash between the two tends to draw attention away from things that really matter, like getting new players acquainted with how things work in the eWorld and keeping it interesting enough so that those new players stay and become productive members of our eSociety.
A second, equally daunting obstacle to true unity, is the lack of any true goal for the country. We are simply sticking around, having training wars occasionally to at least do something, and then going back to becoming inactive militarily as a country, fighting other's battles for them. We need strong leadership, who are able to work with others to create a plan, goals to achieve, and go about implementing those objectives and plans. Maybe our new leadership, with the election of Artela will provide this strong leadership we so desperately need. Or maybe it will not. Either way, you have to choose, what do you want? A united eAmerica, ready to strike whenever we choose to, able to destroy anyone who dares to oppose us, yet the ally of all who wish to be.
These things aren't just some distant dream, never to be realized. We can achieve them. We can be united. We can be prosperous. We can be victorious.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
As one of the COs in US-AIM:
1. I don't think anyone can call US-AIM "incredible success" except maybe just regarding initial PR response.
2. To suggest we are "not in any way co-operating with the eUS government" would be flat out wrong.
3. Regarding a national plan, the problem is that the game boils down to basic strategy of occupying regions. If that plan were fully public, along with all the intricacies of foreign diplomacy, the strategy would likely no longer work. The assumption that can not be made, is that because we do not know the plan, that there is not one. Frustrating, however, isn't it?
As for number 1, it was a decent success. From what I've learned from other newspapers who have US-AIM members as their writers, US-AIM was involved, heavily, in 3 resistance wars, only one was meant to be won but you guys won one of the diversionary ones as well. That is 2 regions liberated, not a bad start. As to number 2, I may have been wrong, however, when the leaders of the eUS are complaining that US-AIM jeopardized some ongoing negotiations with foreign powers I can't help but feel there is a disconnect. As to number 3, there is nothing preventing there from being a national plan. You say it has to be fully public, however, it may not have to be. So long as the COs of MUs and the leaders of the government know, then it can be put into effect. All the general public has to know is that we're making progress, which they can see by looking at their map and noticing TWO member's size diminishing.
EDIT: I see what you mean on number 4, that we can not know if there is a plan currently in place, however, when nothing is being done, clearly we can assume there is no plan.
Pretty much right. We're hoping for just that. Ball's in their court. 🙂