if you were the dictator of the US...

[BlaizeYES]

how long would it take before everything collapsed if you tried to take over the world?

for instance, if all you had was no advisors, no congress or parliament to stop any command you had, how long would you go before you really began to burn out and let it all implode on you? this topic came out of kodiax's topic that contained "gundam epyon", and i started to think about how power really does drive people to madness. that natural high you'll get from uncontrolled power normally only lasts for a short period of time, like riding a wave. when you really realize how much power you already have, that is normally when the wave begins to crash. how would you maintain your balance? maintaining your composure, if you even could?


what countries would you take over first or at least try to eventually take over, and then put your personality in perspective with the role you are assuming. if you have a tendency to be inconsistent and have a problem with stability, a problem with commitment, a problem taking "risks," anything at all. how would that effect your conquest/demise?


take out any topics about "terrorism", hearsay about nukes in the middle east, or any of that bs. think of it from a tactical standpoint and the psychology of a leader, and then think if you'd make a good one.


i'll go first and give a short response:

-i would probably successfully take over the world, followed by me eventually being overthrown by my own people after my decline started. i am very inconsistent as soon as i start doing very well and have a tendency to depart, so i try to avoid being consumed by the prosperity for too long. but with nowhere to go or run, i would have reached the pinnacle, and then i couldnt maintain the peak, and probably end up like napoleon on some secluded island.



i'd like to see some interesting takes on this topic



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: BlaizeYES on 2007-10-04 14:14 ]</font>

[ABDUR101]

I'd start by issueing conscripts with promise of wealth and power to be layed claim to in other countries under the Unification of Humanity. Conquered countries would be issued the same offer, assist me in tactical take over and stake your own claim as the armies push forward. With a stipend that anyone caught deserting or causing insurrection would be killed on-sight unceremoniously. Aswell, anyone in the current 'conquered' zones would be granted the same, any uprisings would be quelled harshly and to the last. There would be no changes in 'conquered' day to day living, everyone would be allowed to go about as they normally would; the only thing changing would be management.

The march would start on the North American Continent, securing all major cities and places of strategic control. Armies would then march to South America to bolster troops. A large fleet would then make its way to South Africa and move north, continously bolstering troops with those in the third world who will be well prepared to fight for unification and prosperity.(And thus control of the oil would bolster my own war machine, nations not willing to submit to unification would be treaded into submission)

I expect the majority of resistance to come from pretty much everything above North Africa. At which point, ultimatums will be issued to any countries unwilling for unification: Unite so humanity can work as one; or perish in flame, because those under unification have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Ash offers no resistance.(and controlling such a large population of humanity and the continents under unification, any nuclear strikes would be ineffective overall, if anything the atrocity of countries issueing nuclear strikes against the unity's civilian populace would bolster support for the unification itself)

If success is made, the unification will be complete, all debts will be nullified and everyone will work for the benefit of themselves and the whole. Sciences and technology will not be for those with the means to afford, but as standard. War effort will be changed to construction effort, there will be no 'third world' countries, but a basic hardline by which everyone will live by if they so wish.

There will be no more starvation, everyone will have some form of work to do; humanity itself will become a workforce dedicated to achieving for all of it's numbers.

Give it afew hundred years and Babylon will be reality again, yet greater than before as the outstretched hands of Man will have touched the stars, God Himself would have to purge existance to end all that humanity would become in it's Unity.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ABDUR101 on 2007-10-04 15:50 ]</font>

[MetaZedlen]

Abdur, you are such a genius...

I have an idea, you be the Army control, and how about I throw in some new law ideas once in a while.

I still like my concept of the "Equal or Greater Punishment." If one is convicted of a crime and found guilty,
A. They will "pay back" what they did.
B. Depending on the severity of the crime, they will do "overtime" to ensure that it won't happen again.

Also, if one is found guilty of a murder, I say that they don't sit on fucking deathrow for 15 years, we kill them right back. (call that the "Get What You Give Policy")

That is a couple ideas that our new world could live by, and hopefully could be followed by very easily.

[ABDUR101]

I cut out most of what I had typed for crime and punishment; though it was a good read. Along with restrictive measures of birthing to control rampant overpopulation, aswell as environmental assistance to insure humanity doesn't destroy it's own cradle.

[Split]

If I took over the world I would do a dance, then build an awesome crib on the Cayman Islands, on the beach.

[Solstis]

I wouldn't try to take over the world. I'm too cynical and apathetic to belive that I would make anything better/worse.

[astuarlen]

I would throw a big party with giant pinatas and a sundae bar. Then I would resign. Need I even mention that everyone would get awesome goody bags?

[BlaizeYES]

abdur, i like your plans, but if heading to south america, i would completely overlook panama and the other countries that are too heavily covered in the dense jungle, and proceed by water to brazil. panama, venezuela, and columbia would be the hardest battles to fight from the littlest amount of resistance, the same with a good majority of africa.

you want to go for what is easiest, but can still leave an impact that is heard around the world for how easily the country was overtaken. many countries need to actually believe that you are uniting them for the greater good, and you want to show a front that is easily submitting around the world when the conquest begins. brazil would be a good starting point when spreading through south america, then moving down to argentina. with those two countries alone would send a message of america's takeover.

i'd move then to britain and australia, as they are already our allies and would probably be the easiest to sway before south america was even conquered, plus it'd be a good stand to have as it'd cut down on the ocean travels and already industrialized to continue production on the military ... but that is to say that they'd be our allies if we were a dictatorship.

everything is determined on momentum and how swiftly you move while still establishing solid control in the conquered countries. you have the right idea by having the people maintaining their current lifestyle, but by creating every country with equal technology, some could still be resistant on the change. they could figure into the "change for the good" into trying to control the lifestyle they are already used to.



taking over the countries is essentially the easiest part. its keeping the morale of the people and still having them ride that idea of a perfectly equal and prosperous world could prove difficult. the wars itself couldnt happen all too quickly before you can establish your credibility in the existing countries that you now have ownership.

now that we are getting more in depth, on paper your idea could work, but you need a good advisor to manipulate the people to share the beliefs, or to be genuinely fearful of your regime in order to accomplish the conquest

[ABDUR101]

Advisors and spokesman are already in the plan, I just did'nt feel like getting into the nitty-gritty of the details.

You'd be surprised how easy it is to herd a flock with just a 'dog' to send them in the direction you want them to go. And the trick isn't to have people outright fear the Unity, but to see it as a good thing, a merging of everyone into one society. The only thing they should fear is their own rejection of the Unification itself. Fear to those who would reject it, but a feeling of mutual respect to those who embrace it's beleifs.

Anyway, I'm done with the topic, it was a quick write-up and I don't feel like giving away all of my ideas away to future dictators. =]

[MetaZedlen]

The biggest obsticale in the way of maintaining control amongst the world even if you have conquered every country: RELIGION

That would be the only factor that some of the other countries would fight back...

[Sord]

frankly, I don't believe humanity has the potential for world unity. I'd rather keep with in a certain area, and just bolster my power (and the country's) to such a state that no other would dare fuck with us. And in the event that someone does, they will be utterly obliterated to enforce that message.

this whole world takeover is beginning to sound like a modern game of RISK XD

[DizzyDi]

I probably wouldn't be a dictator. If anything I'd be apart of the resistance that would rise up against a false Utopia that someone like Abdur would push if he would become dictator (no offense Abdur. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_clown.gif). I dig Guerilla/Freedom Fighting and all that jazz. I'm all into rebelling against the machine and sticking it to the man.

If I were to be ruler if anything, I'd want it to be a small, humble, independent state.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DizzyDi on 2007-10-04 18:59 ]</font>

[astuarlen]

On 2007-10-04 18:56, DizzyDi wrote:

If I were to be ruler if anything, I'd want it to be a small, humble, independent state.



And the question is: metric or imperial?

[DizzyDi]

Metric, DEATH TO AMERICA!

[Sgt_Shligger]

On 2007-10-04 18:45, Sord wrote:
frankly, I don't believe humanity has the potential for world unity.



Technically, we have the potential. . . It's the equivalent of me getting my head bit off by an alien before I finish this post. It could happen, but it won't http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif

[DizzyDi]

On 2007-10-04 19:44, Sgt_Shligger wrote:

On 2007-10-04 18:45, Sord wrote:
frankly, I don't believe humanity has the potential for world unity.



Technically, we have the potential. . . It's the equivalent of me getting my head bit off by an alien before I finish this post. It could happen, but it won't http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif





And thus a fool and his head were parted.

[HUnewearl_Meira]

On 2007-10-04 16:45, Solstis wrote:
I wouldn't try to take over the world.


I'm with you on this part of your statement. Ruling the world just doesn't appeal to me. I mean, certainly, it's the generic dream job to rule the world, but cheese and rice, while it sounds neat and glamorous on the surface, you've really gotta take the reality of it into consideration. I mean, first of all, it's not all milk-baths, sponge cake on demand and all the Fritos you can eat. Certainly, you'll get as much of that as you really care to have, but the simple fact of the matter is that you're going to be getting pulled in every damned direction by everyone with some clout that wants something. That is a 16-hour a day job, and quite frankly, I think it would get rather severely in the way of my own personal projects. Were I in such a position to take over the world, I would think that my position of power would end rather swiftly, after I'd attained satisfactory wealth to ensure financial comfort to the end of my life, and subsequently founded a new government to replace me. That's all I'd really want out of it. Let someone else rule the world; I don't want it.

[ABDUR101]

"If I was president..I'd get elected on friday..assassinated on saturday..buried on sunday.." - Wyclef Jean's "If I Was President"

[Garnet_Moon]

I would just start skirmish after skirmish. Bomb a few towns in each country, all the while staying unknown to the populous. The nations would be on the brink of WWIII and then I would make myself known.

The idea is that all the innocents slain would cause the nations to band together and form one nation to hunt me down and work together. After wards the nation would remain and things would start rolling in a positive direction in the world.

Of course, this is real life. If anybody did that everyone would just nuke the hell out of each other... fuck friendships, just bomb everyone is the motto in todays world.

:

[BlaizeYES]

On 2007-10-04 19:54, HUnewearl_Meira wrote:

I'm with you on this part of your statement. Ruling the world just doesn't appeal to me. I mean, certainly, it's the generic dream job to rule the world, but cheese and rice, while it sounds neat and glamorous on the surface, you've really gotta take the reality of it into consideration. I mean, first of all, it's not all milk-baths, sponge cake on demand and all the Fritos you can eat. Certainly, you'll get as much of that as you really care to have, but the simple fact of the matter is that you're going to be getting pulled in every damned direction by everyone with some clout that wants something. That is a 16-hour a day job, and quite frankly, I think it would get rather severely in the way of my own personal projects. Were I in such a position to take over the world, I would think that my position of power would end rather swiftly, after I'd attained satisfactory wealth to ensure financial comfort to the end of my life, and subsequently founded a new government to replace me. That's all I'd really want out of it. Let someone else rule the world; I don't want it.




well thats what i used to think too, "i dont even think of being president because i dont really care, its too much work."

but think if you inherited the position from your parents who were king and queen in a monarchy. suddenly, you are king without any real say in the decision. having that absolute power as a leader would eventually corrupt you. it's just natural human nature when being shown infinite possibilities and no boundaries to contain yourself.


it sounds reasonable on paper to say that you'd peacefully take only enough to settle down to a nice, stable life. but in reality, the person you used to be would not be the person you are as an absolute ruler, because you would literally feel a high when you're given that much power. saying someone is "drunk with power" is overused, but its a statement that really has some depth to it. the average person cannot save themselves as soon as their mind begins to adapt to the possibility of no limits

[MetaZedlen]

I would say that this whole "power in one person" thing would be quite dangerous, but maybe if there were a way to create a "central intelligence" then power wouldn't be as corrupting as some may think, just distribute certain powers and control to people in the intelligence and things should run smoothly.

[BlaizeYES]

On 2007-10-05 09:31, Zedlen wrote:
I would say that this whole "power in one person" thing would be quite dangerous, but maybe if there were a way to create a "central intelligence" then power wouldn't be as corrupting as some may think, just distribute certain powers and control to people in the intelligence and things should run smoothly.




you mean like the system of "checks and balances"?

thats why we came up with the concept in the us constitution. i'm talking of having no method to keep yourself in line. your own mind would have to discern between reality and delusion as soon as you begin to acknowledge the power. but i think of it as an important question: could you actually discipline yourself and keep grounded when given everything?

[astuarlen]

On 2007-10-05 08:01, BlaizeYES wrote:
well thats what i used to think too, "i dont even think of being president because i dont really care, its too much work."

but think if you inherited the position from your parents who were king and queen in a monarchy. suddenly, you are king without any real say in the decision. having that absolute power as a leader would eventually corrupt you. it's just natural human nature when being shown infinite possibilities and no boundaries to contain yourself.


it sounds reasonable on paper to say that you'd peacefully take only enough to settle down to a nice, stable life. but in reality, the person you used to be would not be the person you are as an absolute ruler, because you would literally feel a high when you're given that much power. saying someone is "drunk with power" is overused, but its a statement that really has some depth to it. the average person cannot save themselves as soon as their mind begins to adapt to the possibility of no limits


It sounds reasonable on paper...?
It's funny that you should say this, as the concept of taking over the world/becoming absolute ruler of the globe is about as ridiculous as the generalization that most folks would go bonkers given that power. Let me postulate that you would have to already be pretty freakin' insane/delusional to seriously want and actively seek such power. Since the whole uberdictator thing is hypothetical to the highest degree, it's interesting that hypothetically abstaining becomes so incredible.

Now, if you want to go with the whole hereditary power scenario, you completely nullify any and all responses, as an individual born into such a situation would be raised much differently and exposed to an entirely different set of experiences. One cannot ask "what would you do if..." and then reject answers based on the idea that you'd be a completely different individual.

And now we're left to wonder why I even bothered with a serious reply. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_clown.gif

[BlaizeYES]

On 2007-10-05 11:22, astuarlen wrote:
It sounds reasonable on paper...?
It's funny that you should say this, as the concept of taking over the world/becoming absolute ruler of the globe is about as ridiculous as the generalization that most folks would go bonkers given that power. Let me postulate that you would have to already be pretty freakin' insane/delusional to seriously want and actively seek such power. Since the whole uberdictator thing is hypothetical to the highest degree, it's interesting that hypothetically abstaining becomes so incredible.

Now, if you want to go with the whole hereditary power scenario, you completely nullify any and all responses, as an individual born into such a situation would be raised much differently and exposed to an entirely different set of experiences. One cannot ask "what would you do if..." and then reject answers based on the idea that you'd be a completely different individual.

And now we're left to wonder why I even bothered with a serious reply. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_clown.gif



lol. nevermind, this discussion is getting into a debate that could go on forever.

the main reason i made this topic was not just about the dream we had as kids of "what if we took over the world," i was more concerned from a psychological aspect. i said my response to you the way i did because you sounded like you had such optimism that you wouldn't want to explore power the second you got your hands on it.

i was using the monarchy example to have you try to see things from a different perspective. the chance to have a taste of power, and after having a taste, begin exploiting it. it could happen to anyone, even the most benevolent person could turn into a maniac.

you're right, it was too serious of a topic. i feel terrible inside. but the thought of "if i was ruler, i would be hated because i would only try to get with as little as possible" and "is a peaceful woman just trying to make a positive difference" reminds me of oprah winfrey. she kept bragging about how "she used to live in the gutter," had that "car giveaway" to everyone in the audience while GM workers lose jobs, and every episode she craftfully manipulates the crowd of females. before that "tom cruise is crazy" thing happened, everyone in that audience was eating it up with a fork and knife, loving tom cruise acting like he is insane. it wasnt until after with the newspapers and everything else that shifted their opinions of him.

if "rags to riches" oprah can turn into a megalomaniac, so can you. i mean maybe you could get the power and still be "jenny from the block", but most people arent that lucky to keep the same mindset. maybe i'm just thinking negative

[astuarlen]

Jenny's parties ain't got nothin' on mine. I mean, helloooo, sundae bar? Kick ass.

[ShinMaruku]

Depends on how you wanna lead the world if you do it in over terms it would be an issue but there are other ways. May seem like a tall order but all you must be is broadly appealing. Men want to be led.

[BlaizeYES]

On 2007-10-05 16:13, astuarlen wrote:
Jenny's parties ain't got nothin' on mine. I mean, helloooo, sundae bar? Kick ass.




i am glad you feel that way, nothing can "beat" optimism



jenny had horrible parties anyway



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: BlaizeYES on 2007-10-05 22:09 ]</font>

[BlaizeYES]

On 2007-10-05 03:36, Garnet_Moon wrote:
I would just start skirmish after skirmish. Bomb a few towns in each country, all the while staying unknown to the populous. The nations would be on the brink of WWIII and then I would make myself known.

The idea is that all the innocents slain would cause the nations to band together and form one nation to hunt me down and work together. After wards the nation would remain and things would start rolling in a positive direction in the world.





lol i'm sorry, it is long overdue, but this idea was very good. people unite to beat a common enemy. thats how it has always worked.

think of it in terms of a relationship that is on the rocks, and the guy is tired of him and the girlfriend fighting or the relationship is losing its appeal. the guy will bring a friend of the opposite sex into the picture that would anger the other partner. whether the friend and the guy mess around or just talk constantly about the girlfriend, eventually the girlfriend will begin to hate the "friend." then, the guy will turn around and hate the friend as well, and the girl will eventually let the friend of the guy have all of the anger, and soon will forget about the hate she had for the guy. they then become closer than they were before


your common enemy theory is probably the closest the world can get to "unity."