ARE WE IN?: eAmerica and ATLANTIS
Day 538, 07:36
•
Published in USA 
•
by
•
by Nick Everdale
Like this article? Vote and Subscribe for All The Your News, Commentary, and Gold Lotteries!
The eAmerican Republic has historically used its distance from the ruinous European PEACE/ATLANTIS wars as a reason for declining involvement in the conflicts. The war weariness following disastrous American forays into France and Mexico created a culture where war games and a focus on managing the eAmerican bureaucracy took precedence over foreign entanglements.
Now eAmerica must ask: Are we in ATLANTIS or not?
Last week the Romanian government, the anchor of ATLANTIS, published a call for alliance assistance in its newspapers. PEACE, it said, had gotten its act together and was steamrolling Romanian holdings in Asia. Hungary was assaulting on a second front. The Romanian troops were divided. Thousands of ATLANTIS volunteers (this editor included) joined the struggle to maintain ATLANTIS control of Asian territories - but the U.S. national response was nonexistent.
President Scrabman charted the course of moderate non-interventionism during his first term, and has a history of tensions with ATLANTIS: For a short time there were discussions of barring President Scrabman from the ATLANTIS forums. War games with Mexico and now Ireland and several peace treaties with Great Britain, Germany, and other nations count as the only major foreign policy moves of the Scrabman Administration.
However, Scrabman did send Marines to Romania, and Americans approved en masse of his America-first foreign policy, re-electing him last week by a massive margin and providing a mandate for a continuation of his policies.
American non-involvement in ATLANTIS affairs, then, is a national question. Do Americans want to remain in ATLANTIS when they make it clear they will not provide the full measure of military assistance against their shared PEACE enemies? The same MPP's could be achieved without official membership in ATLANTIS, or perhaps President Scrabman could take the initiative in proposing a new tiered-membership in ATLANTIS that does not make the United States appear so out of step with the European members.
At the core, Americans must ask whether ATLANTIS is a world alliance or a European alliance, and whether the eUSA would be better served stepping back. We must ask: Are we in?
The eAmerican Republic has historically used its distance from the ruinous European PEACE/ATLANTIS wars as a reason for declining involvement in the conflicts. The war weariness following disastrous American forays into France and Mexico created a culture where war games and a focus on managing the eAmerican bureaucracy took precedence over foreign entanglements.
Now eAmerica must ask: Are we in ATLANTIS or not?
Last week the Romanian government, the anchor of ATLANTIS, published a call for alliance assistance in its newspapers. PEACE, it said, had gotten its act together and was steamrolling Romanian holdings in Asia. Hungary was assaulting on a second front. The Romanian troops were divided. Thousands of ATLANTIS volunteers (this editor included) joined the struggle to maintain ATLANTIS control of Asian territories - but the U.S. national response was nonexistent.
President Scrabman charted the course of moderate non-interventionism during his first term, and has a history of tensions with ATLANTIS: For a short time there were discussions of barring President Scrabman from the ATLANTIS forums. War games with Mexico and now Ireland and several peace treaties with Great Britain, Germany, and other nations count as the only major foreign policy moves of the Scrabman Administration.
However, Scrabman did send Marines to Romania, and Americans approved en masse of his America-first foreign policy, re-electing him last week by a massive margin and providing a mandate for a continuation of his policies.
American non-involvement in ATLANTIS affairs, then, is a national question. Do Americans want to remain in ATLANTIS when they make it clear they will not provide the full measure of military assistance against their shared PEACE enemies? The same MPP's could be achieved without official membership in ATLANTIS, or perhaps President Scrabman could take the initiative in proposing a new tiered-membership in ATLANTIS that does not make the United States appear so out of step with the European members.
At the core, Americans must ask whether ATLANTIS is a world alliance or a European alliance, and whether the eUSA would be better served stepping back. We must ask: Are we in?
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Attack Russia!
Let me ask you something. What has Romania ever done for the US? Out of greed they overexpanded their empire, and now they're paying the price.
Interesting point, Armande. I hope this invites some discussion from all sides.
And again, again, again... you never got tired people?. It is always the same folks intoxicating the media with its articles about what USA should do.
Take it easy guys! get some holidays!
Scrabman is not strictly non-interventionist. eMarines and eNG have fought in Romania, for the Romanians, supplied with weapons and funded by the eUSA taxpayer. As the Commander in Chief, scrabman must have given those orders (if not, we have a serious problem in our military).
Now this involvement may or may not have been much help to the eRomanians, but it was 'official' help. (I would have preferred the eUSA to get behind some resistance movements, to open more battles within Indonesia - but that is just my opinion)
"What has Romania ever done for the US?"
Aside from aiding us in Operation French Toast and backing our forces in Operation Taco Bell, I can't think of much. Then again, we *never* go offensives compared to how much Romania has. If we had ever done more offensives than those two, than I believe Romania would be a daily contributor to our effort.
People get the idea that Romania is a power-hungry nation using Atlantis to win. Romania is trying to "have fun" by dominating as a nation. I am not the biggest friend of Romania, but people need to open their eyes before they criticize.
My two cents as a visitor from Germany:
What Romania does for the alliance is that they constantly fight our common enemy. I do not care whether Romania expands their territory or whether you expand yours, as long as it is ATLANTIS that is successful in expanding. I am quite sure that if you were to attack active PEACE countries, you'd get support from all ATLANTIS members that are not currently too busy defending against foreign intrusions.
My opinion you ask?
I would like to see the US move towards a pro-trade foreign policy. Make peace with more pragmatic PEACE GC countries and negotiate multi-lateral tariff reductions. We will all have more fun because we will all be richer.
Militarily we could still support ATLANTIS by deploying the Marines to assist Romania. After all its unlikely that either Hungary or Indonesia will actually attack the Romanian "homeland"; which would trigger all of Romania's MPPs and rally all of ATLANTIS to Romania's defense.
I would just like more markets open to US goods.
Thanks for editing the article after my previous comment.
We try to be accurate when comments can be verified - your input is appreciated.
If eAmericans leave Atlantis and form a new better alliance, I doubt that they will find other available nations to join.
America can defend themselves but if they went out to attack, they will need supporters.
Plus, I think even after America break off from Atlantis, they will still support Atlantis and fight against PEACE, the only difference is they will have their own will and won't be pushed around anymore.
This game would be much more enjoyable, if there would be more alliance for example 4 or 5, and more neutral countries, or regional alliances. The present super-alliances makes the world bipolar. The fight of good and bad. Anyway noone knows which is which. Nobody knows how it began. Both sides have its reasons for blaming the other.
This makes the constant war.
I am hungarian. I came here, when my country was under romanian occupation. I figth since i am able to do. every day. We reoccupied our country from the enemy.
But the worldwar goes on. Noone can say what is its aim. It's obvious that none of the main powers will be able to occupy the original regions of the others. Than why we fight for? Why the enemy fights for?
I think it's a l'art pour l'art war.
It's getting boring.
The more supporter that any of the two alliances gain, the more fuel to the war.