|
|
| water or land? |
| land, its easier than in water. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| land, we will be closer to our enemies to conquer them. |
|
33% |
[ 1 ] |
| water, we will have commerce in our control in no time. |
|
33% |
[ 1 ] |
| water, we can use fear tactics on opposing countries to make them join us . |
|
33% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:56 am
water or land?
although im only leaving 2 arguments for each (land and water), you guys will have to do the voting and actual discussion.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:48 pm
i say use all 3 and use the DR Wily/Robotnik strategy to make robots of all sorts do the fighting so no humans lives have to be sacrificed and we get greater results remote control is the future of war
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:19 pm
seriously? you greedy pig, dont you know anything about propaganda?
people who think we are murdering savage a** holes will attack us on sight. people who think we will destroy all the murdering savage a** holes will be willing to die for us. in your situation, lets say we have an army of 100 robots versus an army of 100 people. if we somehow win, that will be 100 people killed. if we lose (more likely than win), that will just be 100 robots wasted, along with our own lives.
however if our only weapon is propaganda, a variable amount of people will come from a variably sized group but in this example 50 people will come from a group of 100. now we have not only gained an army, the enemy has just lost their army. we have the morale advantage due to a large number of the enemy joining our side. not to mention, if we win, we will be one of the strongest countries the world has ever seen, and if we lose, we will end up sanctifying everyone else.
therefore, your plan has just been destroyed. got another?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 12:21 am
both water and land we attack from the seas and the ground that way they have now where to run but to the skys and soon enough we will grow strong enough to controll the skys as well twisted
|
|
|
|
|
|
shadow_hellchild9756 Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
shadow_hellchild9756 Crew
|
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 12:24 am
Wv_Hawk_vW seriously? you greedy pig, dont you know anything about propaganda? people who think we are murdering savage a** holes will attack us on sight. people who think we will destroy all the murdering savage a** holes will be willing to die for us. in your situation, lets say we have an army of 100 robots versus an army of 100 people. if we somehow win, that will be 100 people killed. if we lose (more likely than win), that will just be 100 robots wasted, along with our own lives. however if our only weapon is propaganda, a variable amount of people will come from a variably sized group but in this example 50 people will come from a group of 100. now we have not only gained an army, the enemy has just lost their army. we have the morale advantage due to a large number of the enemy joining our side. not to mention, if we win, we will be one of the strongest countries the world has ever seen, and if we lose, we will end up sanctifying everyone else. therefore, your plan has just been destroyed. got another? dude i don't like your theroy ok plus i don't like you calling peopl greedy pigs just be cause they are trying to help by suggesting simpl yet ideotic plains stare
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 2:12 pm
Just because someone states a theory that seems greedy, doesn't mean that the person is. We are all working toward the same goal, but we need people who are willing to think differently. Calling someone a greedy pig because their idea seems greedy will only discourage creativity. You can point out all the flaws in their plans and ideas you want, but keep things from becoming personal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Masked Swordsman Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 8:27 pm
first of all, Land because it will be easier to fight on and conquer our enemies. Second, What if there was no land, and No water? think about it. If world domination succeeds, the world will be over run.Where would we fight? I know this is impossible but if you seriously think about it, it is possible in a way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 5:08 pm
robin_girl wonder first of all, Land because it will be easier to fight on and conquer our enemies. Second, What if there was no land, and No water? think about it. If world domination succeeds, the world will be over run.Where would we fight? I know this is impossible but if you seriously think about it, it is possible in a way. Over run with who or what? Taking over the world wouldn't multiply the amount of people and creatures on the Earth. If you're assuming an increase in resource depletion, then maybe if we plan on a hostile takeover. As war is terror on resources, more so as time passes and technology develops, it would make a little more sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Masked Swordsman Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
