Staredit Network

No, because you would get the resources from the other countries, the coutries would stop trading with the country you chose and they wouldnt get any.

Sooner or later, countries are going to realize that you will stop trading with them next, and then you're screwed.

What you want countries to do, is have them rely on each other. The more they rely on each other, the less likely they are to attack each other.

Okay kid, go seek out some mental help, and step away from the crack.

Yes, but from all the coutries in the world, getting rid of one that gives you something and get it from 2 others then just cut them off from everyone, then they need money then you buy them. They were dependant on each other take one out and you can own it!

Yes... I'm sure you're very correct, 7-7, but I'm not convinced .

I'm sure that you're right that when one country stops trading with another country, all the other countries in the world also have no choice but to join the country that stops trading. Your logic is very understandable.


How is this relevant?

I doubt that is going to happen. "Most" countries are smart enough not to do it. Also, if that does happen, it will be the time of imperialism again.

Ahem.. what I said was if the countries WERE smart enough. If the countries weren't, then it's easy to take over the world.

I'll try explaining it better. Country 1 is the US, Country 2 is the country the US is taking over. 3, 4, and 5 are the three countries that trade with both 1 and 2. Tell 3, 4, and 5 to stop trading with 2. Get needed resources from country 6 if need be, wait till 2 is poor, buy them and bring in the military and run it like its yours.

Why would 2, 3 and 4 stop trading with 2 because you say it? Also, there's more then 6 countries. You can try to repeat this all you want, but sooner or later countries are going to see how you're slowly taking over the world and stop you.

I was just trying to explain it. Yes I know there are more than 6 countries, It was a small idea on what I mean. If you told a bunch of countries to stop trading with another country, and promise them your trade, I tihnk they would especially if you gave them something like money. Or promise alliance or anything you need to get that country to stop trade with that country, then when you take that country over, you got that trade to trade again. So it would only be about a year or so a loss of trade.

So.. your country is paying other countries an equal amount of money of what EACH of those countries (more then six) gets from trading. You're screwed.

Equal, when did you ever get the idea of equal trade? If you wanted to take over a country, you want it to become poor, You get it poor by cutting off the trade, doesnt matter how the trade is cut off, it just matters that it is cut off. If you dont think that asking the coutries to stop trading will work then use military force and take the ships or whatever to stop the trading, control the harbor or ports.

For once, try READING WHAT I SAY.

You try to stop trade with a country. You tell everyone else to stop trading with that country. Those countries want compensation because they stopped trading and that lowers their income. You are expected to compensate a lot of countries. How are you supposed to pay ~50 countries a large amount of money every month until the initial target gives in? And then the same with 49 countries, then 48, etc.

They just trade with a different country. I know I am making it sound easier than it is, I am just giving an example about how you would want to take control over a country. Make its economy slim, yes you may go into some debt, but most multy-millionares did to get to where they are now. Then you win in the long run.

If you were a smaller country and stopped trading with a bigger country, the only economy thats gonna get lower is the smaller country. If a bigger country had a important goods being bought from a smaller country, it then would be economically damaged. ( size as in resource and economic size ) Mp)7-7 is talking about economic sanctions, and economic overpower.
Economic overpower is one of the use UK, France used to take over many many countries.

Wow, Its nice to see that Lithium came again to say exactly what I have been trying to say.

The only thing I didnt get was in this last sentance.

Could you explain to me what this says. France used this to take over countries? What does th UK have to do with it?

He's probably talking about European colonialism and the establishment of empires by Britain, France and Germany in the 19th century. He's saying that we used our economic power to defeat the nations we annexed to the empire, though I'm not sure in what context he means.

One of the major reasons why people would support world domination, would be to help eliminate wars. That's an ok idea, but there is a much better, less voilent, and more realistic solution that's already underway.

If countries relied on each other through trading, that would give countries less incentive to attack each other. Because they know, it would cost them a great deal of money. And if world powers don't attack eachother, that helps eliminate wars.

The day when the world is fully globalized and countries are looked apoun as states, is the day the debate for a world wide federal government will begin.

I think that there would still be some sort of conlict, not reall known as war, but it would be liike the U.S.'s civil war where two sides disagree. There would still be a loot of this!

Exactly. That's all there would be left.

These could be just as bad as war, because it would be mostly the people fighting against there own area, there would be no treaties, no reason to stay friends with them. Normally half the allying is because they want to keep their trust so they have help. Without seperate countries, no allies. Basically a free for all.

It's the ideal way to unite the world under one government, true. But can't you just rename each country to a state and say that it's one country but with warring states? If it would work perfectly like this, though, then it's the best way to peace.


I understand what you people said about countries overpowering other countries economically, but 7-7's example was ludicrous. You can't hope to have all the countries in the world stop trading with a particular country without proper compensation from your money bank.

When you start trying to take over the world as slowly as you people are saying, overpowering one, two or even three countries at a time by stopping trade, sooner or later the world is going to turn against you. If one country wants to create a central government it has to be by a group of countries overpowering the rest - can also be viewed as majority wins - or some global blackmail of 'I blow up your countries with my Icarus in the sky if I don't get boss of country yaya'. A single country has no chance of overpowering the rest of the world economically, and even less chance of holding the position. A single country can take over the world through the use of nukes and threatened nukes, but that's a fragile way to take over the world and sooner or later you'll lose. Probably sooner. And diplomacy is basically the same thing as a central world government with majority wins, but with one country emerging on top, which would obvious turn everyone against you and it would fail to be a majority.

Yes, that's the entire reason why one single country can not dominate the entire world. Unless under extreme future circumstances.

The federal government 400-500 years from now, would be much like the UN of today, just with more executive power and cooperation. Much like the american federal goverment is with it's states.

The transistion of the countries to states won't be like, "today we declares countries as states." It won't happen over night. SOCIETY will change the meaning of "country" to fit more of the meaning of "state" through time. When that occurs and when the enconomy is fully globalized, THAT'S when talk of world wide federal government will begin. One can't say for sure when this will hapen, but odds are it isn't going to happen within the next one or two centuries.

I have noticed that the UN is not as powerful as people think. No one ever listens to it. George Bush didnt wait for the UN's say when he attacked Iraq, he should have though. We wouldnt be how we are today.