War: What is it good for? Absolutely Everything!
•
by Kilgore Trout 89
War: What is it good for? The answer to eCanada is simple. War means wellness, war means profit, war means security war means strength. Weeks ago the people of eCanada elected a new President who promised us a war with the eUK. Over the course of a few weeks we took the fight to the eUK. Citizens were able to increase in strength and level, weapons companies increased in production and most importantly we captured Scotland. We had the eUK down to a single territory and held the strategic advantage. However, in the final hours of the war, our President signed a peace treaty that has undone all our progress and left us in a worse place than we began.
For the citizens who were excited for war, this has been a great disappointment. For the first time since the collapse of eCanada we had an opportunity to establish ourselves as a world power. The eUK was beaten and the knife was ready to fall. However instead of finishing what we had started, we essentially surrendered to an inferior force. By signing the eTreaty of Versailles, the President has made it clear that his eCanada is one that bends to international pressure instead of listening to the citizens who voted him in. This is not the image of the strong eCanada that the Canadian Empire Party believes we deserve.
We occupied Scotland. Are you aware that Scotland is a gateway to North America? By holding Scotland we ensured security for ourselves and for the eUSA. By signing the eTreaty of Versailles, the President agreed to return Scotland the the eUK. The lynchpin to the security of our nation now lies in the hands of a country who we almost destroyed. This is simply a bad defense strategy. Are we to believe that the citizens of the eUK will ignore the fact that we occupied their country? I do not. They will seek revenge and because of the Treaty, we are now vulnerable to attack. This is simply unacceptable. The Canadian Empire party believes that the defense of our territory should be one of our primary concerns.
Most importantly, by signing the Treaty, the President has made it clear that he does not value the opinions or the wellness of the eCanadian citizens. A poll on the eCan forums shows that at the time of publishing, that 86% of eCanadian's do not think we should ally ourselves with the eUK. The same President who signed the Treaty that has disappointed a vast number of eCanadians also holds a position in EDEN command that makes him directly responsible for the outcome of this war. Our government needs to get it's priorities straight. We need to put eCanada first and our alliances second. The adoption of this treaty is an abomination that has left eCanada weak and has abandoned the eCanadian citizens in favour of international politicians. The Canadian Empire Party is designed specifically to listen to the will of the people and fight for what they want.
It is clear that it was a mistake to sign the treaty. It is clear that this will haunt our country until we can make a stand, listen to our citizens and take back our dignity. The only question that remains is: What do we do now? There is only one way to repair the damage that has been done. We must make our voices loud and clear. We must oppose the Treaty with every ounce of strength we can muster. If you want to send a clear message that we will not stand for surrender and that we need a strong military I ask you to stand with the Canadian Empire Party. Our party is founded on the belief that eCanada should operate off of a strong military and a strong international presence where we will never bow down to outside pressures. If you want a strong eCanadian military make your voice heard and join the CEP.
The CEP Fourms can be found at: http://canadianempireparty.forumotion.com/forum.htm
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Finally, a voice of sanity on this issue! Well done, Kilgore! 😃
Hear Hear! This was a mistake and more should speak out against it.
Terrible Propoganda. For the record, we did not win a single battle against the UK, except where they retreated, for THEIR OWN strategic purposes. They had the strategic advantages, they had the MPPs and the ability to invade us.
Without MPP's we are stronger than the UK. This move has made our nation far more secure. Look at the damage and the relative strengths of our nations, with and without MPP's.
Too, as I have mentioned multiple times, I was introduced into EDEN command after this peace treaty had been agreed upon.
Come up with facts, not baseless propoganda.
When the Prime Minister disagrees with it, it's propaganda. When it's fitting to his worldview, it's truth. We're starting to understand now.
As I said, look at the damage output by each country. Give this country facts, not criticism intended to promote your own party.
By the way, what is your experience in this game with the war module?
Kilgore? Craig? Who with military experience actually supports your view, for more than Teh Lulz.
Show me facts, or face the truth as I have said it.
Jbdivinus out.
I was introduced into EDEN command after this peace treaty had been agreed upon. ~jbdvinus
So as Prime Minister you had no say in the signing of this peace treaty? Oh, well then the real question is why didn't you fight to get a say in it? We Canadians elected you to be our voice and when it mater (at the discussion table of the most powerful alliance in this game) you didn't speak up for our country?
You arrogantly forget, sir, that many citizens who have been around longer than I do not support this Versailles agreement. Veterans like General Acacia Mason and Bruck stand opposed to such an agreement. I suppose that their view on this matter will not be considered as valid as your own.
Even if we had no chance to salvage the war we should have kept Scotland.
>Veterans like General Acacia Mason
You call him a Vet? he had not even seen the PEACE invasion of eCanada!
And You should not Forget, Bruck was the one that opend the war on France when he blindly followed ATLANTIS, and dindt even bother close it, the reason we got invade the FIRST time.
One could even question the possiblity that if PEACE couldnt have invaded eNorth America, would UK even switch sides?
Working my way through the ranks of The Crimson Order from it's inception after the fall of eCanada has taught me one thing. Peace does not work. When there is military conflict, we flourish as a country. Citizens increase in strength, there is a greater sense of national unity and people buy more expensive weapons. I say this not only as a politician, but as an Executive officer of the Crimson Guard, Director of the Crimson Reserves and most importantly as an eCanadian citizen. eCanada wants and needs war. We should not be denied.
Yes the we should have held Scotland to create a buffer zone between us and them to protect Canada/America. The Brolliance and EDEN could have held it and it would have put us in a better position to stop the UK from using it against us again.
Scotland was a strategic godsend as the gateway to North America. The nation that holds Scotland has a significant stake over a military conflict in the Western World. We gave that up.
We should have at least tried to keep it. This peace will never last and will never put an end to the Uk's want for revenge. If we can learn anything from looking at ourselves we know that the thirst for revenge is a strong national motivator in times of war. And peace treaty or no, we are in a time of war. All we have done is given cause for revenge and gained little in the process. The war was winnable even after London.
Instead, now we have an enemy, returned to size and soon to return to full strength as new hospitals will be built. Their moral is superior and their resolve stronger, they want revenge and we must prepare. You promised war and gave us peace
For what it's worth
Unfortunately... as much as I don't like it, jbdivinus probably made the best decision. Our allies were unable or unwilling to help us out, and the eUK vastly outnumbered us. Should we have given them Scotland however? No. Will they come seeking revenge? Almost certainly. What is the answer? I don't know.
I can tell you what the answer is not. The answer is NOT to sit back and pretend that giving up Scotland was a good move. We should not have given up so easily. It would be irresponsible to simply brush this under the carpet and ignore that it has happened. We need to speak up and make it clear that we don't all support this move.
EDEN wouldnt have helped us keep scotland, all that would have happend is that we would lose scotland and eUK would still have an open war with us.
Time to take back British lands!
If we didnt close the war it would be Bruck fail all over again. You guys want to see Canada conquered again but this time under the flag of UK?
Panda, neither the pro-Treaty or anti-Treaty forces wants to see eCanada under the flag of the eUK. That's a cheap shot with no basis in Kilgore's letter. Those who are willing to step up and debate ideas deserve better than a false political punchline.
Panda, it's not my fault the French were pompous asses
Not so smug now are they? And what's this about giving them back their lands?
Man, THIS is what I crave. Actual conflicting ideas being tested in the dual arenas of intellect and emotion.
Canada could absolutely not, under any circumstances, defeat the UK+17 triggered Mutual Protection Pacts, alone.
The is a simple, logical fact.
Was it Canada launching the attacks on London?
No.
Was it 100% Canadian Gold used to fund the invasion of London, a region with over 4500 population at the time? (Remember, the higher the population, the higher the price in Gold to invade)
No.
Our American bros were on the front lines, taking care of business, when it became obvious that Eden wasn't prepared to back us up.
Maybe we (the USA, not Canada) could have kept London on lockdown for days, weeks, or even months. But at what cost?
V2 readiness is more important than petty vengeance.
The USA, Norway, and all our other allies were pulling out.
Does anyone here suggest that Canada should take on the UK+17 alone?
I dare you to say so right here, right now.
Shout out to the world how much of an ignorant fool you are, so the rest of us will know never to trust your opinions again.
THIS is what I've been craving. Ideas being tested in the twin arenas of intellect and emotion.
Alot of people are saying "If we had taken london, the MPPs would be closed that way too!"
Here is a definition of the word "if"
a: in the event that
b: allowing that
c: on the assumption that
So yes "IF" we had defeated London, we would have defeated London.
As usual, the obvious is obvious.
There is nothing in the article, nor in any of these comments that suggest "HOW" we would have accomplished this.
The USA was pulling out, Norway, with her Romanian MPPs triggered against the UK, was pulling out.
If the war was left open in a vain, stupid attempt to hold Scotland, the UK would have begun crushing us with her 17 MPPs the second it achieved peace with our other allies.
I think your missing the point Lucas, and since that's the 2nd time you have posted that rant perhaps you reread a bit.
No one is saying Canada should have taken on 17 alliances alone.
Our allies pulled out, yes and that's damn bad. The reason behind it is low moral based on one defeat after a long haul. And right there with them was our representative to EDEN, our President. Could Canada take on Phoenix alone? Of course not. But the majority of EDEN Presidents are responsible for their actions and inactions, JBdivinus included. Could he have helped rally EDEN command and brought us a victory? Yes.
No, I don't believe I am missing the point.
I've posted my comment twice because there are 2 articles discussing the exact same topic, at the same time.
If logical and well presented arguments based on game mechanics are to be considered "rants", maybe I'm wearing the wrong icon.
The point is that the Americans were doing all the work, and they decided to back off because they had other interests to pursue, or didn't want to pay the costs.
That's it.
Saying it was anything else is being dishonest and represents unenlightened self-interest, which I do not support.
Damn, an actual set of clearly defined positions on both sides, possibly leading to the testing of said ideas in the twin arenas of intellect and emotion. ABOUT BLOODY TIME.
I would have welcomed the excitement of real war, even if it meant losing territory for a time.
Excellent work as always, Kilgore. You're a credit to this country and a tremendous asset to the Crimson Order.
I think the eUK was willing to negotiate a Treaty only after they saw Spain and Poland gain advantageous positions that may have cost them dearly. Had those land swaps not taken place I'm not sure the eUK would have been so happy to accommodate negotiations.
I was disappointed to see allies leave the battle after so much posturing, so many displays of bravado in the press. I would have liked to have seen us throw everything we had at London after position was gained, but we'll never know what the outcome might have been.
I agree that Scotland is strategic and believe we'll rue its return. We went from ceasefire to signing in very short order. I must wonder if taking time to look at possibilities might have produced alternatives to losing that essential springboard.
That said, I agree this is a war game and I hope we will be up to our knees in empty shell casings again soon. It adds great quality to the game experience.
I've heard of Canada being conquered, but have never experienced it. Why start with someone as insignificant as the UK? For as long as I've known, peace treaties never solved anything. Look at the actual Treaty of Versailles. They used it to end World War 1. What happened over ten years later? Hitler takes command and slaughters millions upon millions of Jewish. Was it better or worse to have that treaty? Lieutenent C. buzz
How can you compare hitler to this???? dude, not a fair argument, and the reason for that was we had control of most of germanies factories and german land. Hitler was pissy because "the glorious fatherland" was being shit on. The reason hitler could start WW2 was because the treaty of versailles was harsh and he was an amazingly charismatic leader. He was evil, but he was damn good at what he made his job.
so, before you delve into history, make sure you understand it properly. This treaty is overwhelmingly fair. And we may have won today, or for a month maybe, but we never would have been able to hold all of it for very long, and eventually we would've brought the wrath of multiple countries down on our heads. I prefer to remain in the clear with the british shaken than up to my knees in an unnecesary mess
Q1 WEAPON FOR 0.06 GOLD = 1.9 CAD
Contact me.
Interesting article! I had missed this one since I was AFK for a couple of weeks and was looking forward to getting up to date on the whole thing.
Seems to me that we should at least have tried to keep Scotland for strategic reasons and also for symbolic purpose (politics relies heavily on the capacity to motivate the people (particularly in eRep) and if you can take advantage of an opportunity or situation, you have to ‘cause if you don’t, it’s a relative loss).
Reading this article and following comments also remembered me of why I was an active member of the CEP before the fall of eCanada and why I served in Congress under their banner: They simply promote the best way forward for eCanada!
I have a question: Why was the peace treaty not associated with any monetary compensation from eUK (or did we get one simply not trough the IG treaty?)
Lol @ Argumentum ad hitlerum. What the fuck do you know about Versaille? It wasn't actually a peace treaty, it was kicking the fallen in the teeth.
Think -> Write. Never the other way around.
Adasko, and giving back all the land EDEN took in the eUK was...? A gift?
Sounds like a good kick to us if you ask me
It's one thing to say you don't think we should have signed the treaty. Like it or not, we did and are bound to it. Are you advocating that we renege on the treaty so soon after signing it? What implications would that have for future PM's? How could anyone trust our word ever again.
What is the CEP's vision for how to move forward?
Of course I don't advocate reneging. The fact is that a decision was made that was not beneficial to eCanada and our President who is a member of EDEN command did not fight for us. How should we move forward? We have to fight for what is in our interest. When we promise people that we are going to conquer another country we need to follow through. Consider the morale we just lost. The entire country was excited for war only to have that dream pulled away from them at the last minute.
We complain that new citizens don't stick around very long. People quit because people get bored. War drives this game. If we don't follow through on our wars people are going to get bored and people are going to quit. If you promise people something and then don't deliver, they are going to get bored and they are going to quit. It seems that once again we are looking out for EDEN's interests and not our own. Our priorities are not in order.
This war is a wash. It's time to find a new one. This time though, let's finish it.
Of course, what people tend to forget is that the rl Treaty of Versaille was revenge for what Germany under Bismark did to France.
ppl it is not the question did we have any chance on London... Real question is WHY didn't we try. WHY PM did not bother to move our allies for our cause. Second question is WHAT we got for our sacrifice in war? WHY we returned Scotland - we won the war, then gave up all that we got from it.
I'm new to the game but, from what I understand didn't we already have a peace treaty with eUK, how did that turn out last time?
voted