An Incompetent or a Traitor?
•
by Dillan Stone
I write these terms in jest, but to make a serious point;
Chris Stanwick has decided to announce his candidacy for President. Fair enough. Except that he is the author of a proposed "peace" deal with PEACEGC which would pay them 250 gold per region, and permanently cede California to Indonesia.
I'm sorry, Stanwick; didn't they want our firstborn too?
Richardson is no George Washington, I'll admit. But there really isn't anyone else who could have been President instead, and who could have done much better. Harrison didn't start these wars - they have been open for months. He didn't provoke the attacks; the "provocation" (aka excuse) is also months old.
But Harrison Richardson has one (and perhaps only one) advantage over Stanwick; it is better to pay millions for defense, than to pay a penny in tribute.
Let us assume the absolute worst case scenario - that if we continue the war, the eUSA will be totally conquered. Is it not better to go down fighting till the very end, than to beg for peace from those who launched this cowardly invasion on all sides? Make no mistake - a Stanwick administration is a total surrender to PEACE. I, for one, would rather make PEACE pay dearly for every region they take, than hand them gold on a silver platter.
This is not a blind endorsement of Richardson - his words imply that he was considering this abominable deal that Stanwick was willing to offer as a starting point for negotiations. After all, why would Congress even be looking at such a thing unless the President was on board with considering it? I would rather have someone in the Presidency who is absolutely committed to fighting this war to the last state, no matter the cost. But, until such a person emerges, I would rather have the "incompetent" Richardson than the "neutral" smelling Stanwick.
P.S. UNBAN NONESUCH!
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Voted!
Fight until there is no more land to defend and then fight in resistance war....I'll quit or move away from this country before I sign on to a deal where we just hand it all over to them.
PEACE would put us on eUSA on Reservations and keep our best territories. I will fight to the last State! I will fight in resistance! No peace with PEACE.
Agreed. If we let PEACE sign a treaty with us, they will just pick off our allies and then attack us again later...
I'd rather lose a war and keep most of our states, than die defending the last one. At least there would be an America left, something we can build back up. If we refuse to stop the fighting, then America's prime has already come and gone.
No Way! Giving up Cali for good? Horrible idea. Time to fight until complete destruction.
Devoid...obviously you are devoid of any rational thought.... what do you think will happen in a few month's when we buy ourselves a couple of weeks/month's and then have no one to stand by our side.
No, we need to close the wars so that PEACE can't continue to attack with all their MPPs, something we should have done a long time ago. I'd take the peace treaty--though we don't need back every state, just the ones with resources we need (kansas) for now.
Stanwick is neither incompetent nor a traitor. He is a patriot and I will attest to this personally.
There are people in the eUSA that are interested in having a peace treaty with PEACE vs those that want to fight to the death. I just think some people need to realize that losing every single territory possibly would be disastrous on a few levels. If we lived in exile, completely, it would take us months upon months to get the economic ability to RW all of regions back. We can barely keep it together within our own borders and political in fighting now- how are we going to keep our government cohesive while in exile and spread throughout allied countries (if there are any even LEFT)?
- Not to mention that a lot of RL American players would abandon the game if we lost everything. How many of our players have other games at their fingertips where they don't have to worry about being on the losing team and paying the price for past administrations and ridiculous foreign policy mistakes?
Not to mention that a lot of Real Life Americans play for PEACE GC.
This is about winning a game. This is not a Real Life issue. I think America has to accept the loss and give up some regions.
When Russia was invaded by Atlantis, hundreds of Russians quit the game. Only a few left.
It took Russia 1 month to take over Norway, another month to harrass Norway through ridiculously high taxes and rejection of all MPP. Only then, Russians were able to liberate the first Russian region.
So, does America want to learn it the hard way?
I understand those who try to sign a peace agreement. They might look like wussies but they pick the least of two evils.
I understand (and respect) those who fight till the end. You will be crushed. But what's left from you is going to be great "die hard" players, who will be able to build this nation again.