Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathawk on 2006-10-31 at 23:37:44
Most land in Russia isn't very... nice to live in to say the least.. =\
This poll should basicly be changed to "where are you from?" -_-
This poll should basicly be changed to "where are you from?" -_-
Report, edit, etc...Posted by NerdyTerdy on 2006-10-31 at 23:45:18
Lol Deathawk. Like Azu said it's us choosing for the country to take over, not the country, so they're still nice. Also I don't know why you're disputing what land you would get based on who took over, you'd get all the land and all the resources. The only thing that would be difference based on which country ruled is who the people leading you were (also I suppose the "home base" of the world). I stand by Canada!
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mp)7-7 on 2006-11-01 at 06:09:30
I just thought of a bit of a problem, if we tok over another country from another continent, that would be one targeted country once we too it over, it would be a while before we had it protected. Ex- we take over Russia, surrouding coutries attack us, we lose it. Back to where we were. Canada would be the safest though I still stick with Europe because theres not a low of countries bordering it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Killer_Kow(MM) on 2006-11-01 at 16:04:17
QUOTE(MindArchon @ Oct 30 2006, 02:02 AM)
From incidents relating back to the 60s and 70s, the francophones (French speaking) have been concerned about their culture, so language preservation laws have been passed.
[right][snapback]580796[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]580796[/snapback][/right]
I'm not sure how well you know your Canadian history, but that problem has existed in the area before Canada was officially a country.
As for which country, I think any country that took over the world wouldn't be able to maintain it, no matter who they were. So it wouldn't matter.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Azu on 2006-11-01 at 16:14:54
QUOTE(Mp)7-7 @ Nov 1 2006, 04:09 AM)
I just thought of a bit of a problem, if we tok over another country from another continent, that would be one targeted country once we too it over, it would be a while before we had it protected. Ex- we take over Russia, surrouding coutries attack us, we lose it. Back to where we were. Canada would be the safest though I still stick with Europe because theres not a low of countries bordering it.
[right][snapback]581706[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]581706[/snapback][/right]
No it would be more like you press a button, and that country rules the world.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Centreri on 2006-11-01 at 17:11:23
If a country did manage to take control of the world, the countries that could hold it together longest are probably China and Russia, because of the large population and all (and large military. DRAFTING in Russia if you're male and a certain age. I hate it, but it makes the army larger then most).
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathawk on 2006-11-01 at 17:14:35
Uhhh, if you're in control of the world then you would have all of the Earths land.. wouldn't you..?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Centreri on 2006-11-01 at 17:19:28
Land doesn't matter. Army does. How can a country rule the world if they can't control it? How much a military and all does a country need to control an entire planet? More then any single country has right now. If two countries decided to divide the planet into two parts, that would be more realistic.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Azu on 2006-11-01 at 17:28:09
If a country takes over earth then everything on it belongs to them..
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Lithium on 2006-11-01 at 17:42:35
... U.S. system is the most viable system of ruling the planet. "State government" that is puppeteered by the fedral government. If a country were to be ruled with force and a army, it would actually fall faster and be corrupt. The world doesn't get controlled. They get convinced and persuaded. In the Colonization Age of Imperialists, they almost controlled half of the world each.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Centreri on 2006-11-01 at 17:48:34
But we know that wouldn't happen. If you use force, yes, everything would fail. But it would last longer then if you tried to do it by diplomacy, even though it would fail anyway. Plus, the title is 'Global Takeover', not 'Controlling Earth through Diplomacy'.
And no, if a country takes everything over, everything officially belongs to them. Doesn't mean the country can do anything it wants, or rebellion and the like happen.
And no, if a country takes everything over, everything officially belongs to them. Doesn't mean the country can do anything it wants, or rebellion and the like happen.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Lithium on 2006-11-01 at 18:04:54
No, Diplomacy actually lasts longer. And for millistaric forces, no country owns a large enough army to conquer the world. Not even Russia, or China, or whatever country you may pick.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2006-11-01 at 19:33:18
Which ever one has the least limited goverment.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by EcHo on 2006-11-01 at 19:36:00
The US might not have a large military but they have enough weapons to take over the whole world anytime they want.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mp)7-7 on 2006-11-01 at 20:23:43
QUOTE(EcHo @ Nov 1 2006, 07:36 PM)
The US might not have a large military but they have enough weapons to take over the whole world anytime they want.
[right][snapback]581937[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]581937[/snapback][/right]
Thats true, but remember that if you gave every person in China a gun with 3 bullets they could kill everyone in the wolrd, but we have more tech though!
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Centreri on 2006-11-01 at 21:15:19
QUOTE(Lithium @ Nov 1 2006, 07:04 PM)
No, Diplomacy actually lasts longer. And for millistaric forces, no country owns a large enough army to conquer the world. Not even Russia, or China, or whatever country you may pick.
[right][snapback]581903[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]581903[/snapback][/right]
Why.. the countries would backstab the conquerer first chance they get. And I never claimed a country could control the earth; I said it's only possible by dividing the earth into 2 parts, one for each country, or 3 parts.
The U.S. could probably conquer the earth but not hold it for a long time because of a small military, troop-wise.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Azu on 2006-11-01 at 21:39:41
"U.S." isn't on the list btw
Report, edit, etc...Posted by EcHo on 2006-11-01 at 21:56:51
QUOTE(Mp)7-7 @ Nov 1 2006, 08:23 PM)
Thats true, but remember that if you gave every person in China a gun with 3 bullets they could kill everyone in the wolrd, but we have more tech though!
[right][snapback]581964[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]581964[/snapback][/right]
Thats if they know how to use a gun, and 3 bullets cant do squat without a gun.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mp)7-7 on 2006-11-01 at 22:14:55
what do you mean 3 bullets wont do anything without a gun, how long did it take to figure that out. I said a gun and three bullets, why did you say no gun bullets do nothing when I said gun?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by EcHo on 2006-11-01 at 23:51:40
Err sorry missed that, anyways its not easy to hold a gun, unless its a handgun and people still can't use it well if they have no experience, especially citizens.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by NerdyTerdy on 2006-11-02 at 00:09:57
Anyone can hit point-blank range 
(unless they're afraid to pull the trigger). I think Azu's point here was if you could pick one country that would *magically* rule the world and not have any rebellion possible which would it be. I think it's basically asking which is your favorite .
(unless they're afraid to pull the trigger). I think Azu's point here was if you could pick one country that would *magically* rule the world and not have any rebellion possible which would it be. I think it's basically asking which is your favorite .Report, edit, etc...Posted by Azu on 2006-11-02 at 00:11:19
Or asking which would be the best ruler..
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MindArchon on 2006-11-02 at 00:39:49
QUOTE(Killer_Kow(MM) @ Nov 1 2006, 02:04 PM)
I'm not sure how well you know your Canadian history, but that problem has existed in the area before Canada was officially a country.
As for which country, I think any country that took over the world wouldn't be able to maintain it, no matter who they were. So it wouldn't matter.
[right][snapback]581825[/snapback][/right]
As for which country, I think any country that took over the world wouldn't be able to maintain it, no matter who they were. So it wouldn't matter.
[right][snapback]581825[/snapback][/right]
I was referring to the Quiet Revolution and FLQ eras, as that was when the situation was first officially addressed, and solutions were trying to be formed.
There always were issues with English versus French with the war and Upper and Lower Canada. Then you had the whole Métis issue. But it wasn't until the 60's when the issue finally exploded and Canada was in threat of splitting up.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Lithium on 2006-11-02 at 02:00:55
The U.S. has a small army? Where did you get that information.
The U.S. has the 2nd largest active army in the world.
Know it before you say it!
The U.S. has the 2nd largest active army in the world.
Know it before you say it!
Report, edit, etc...Posted by smasher25 on 2006-11-02 at 02:08:58
Why isnt there the United states of america option? wait I guess that would mean the strongest military practiacally. Anyways I would pick China cuz of lots and lots of power in almost every aspect, also I get to give back Korea like 2/3 of their original land mass