Ads on sites
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
On one hand this makes sense, as long as the dictator in question isn't out for world domination, ...
And also assuming that the democracy is not. Most of the world would say that the US doesn't qualify here and has, for a long time, been a democratic war machine, much like Rome and Greece were when they were Republics. Remember, Roman expansion was under the republic, the contraction was under the Emperors.
In recent times I've definitely come to believe that the US is just out for expansion... it sickens me.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I'm not sure I think the citizens of Europe tolerate it less - if anything, their leaders are just better.
How do you think that they get better leaders?
Frankly I think it comes from the closer ties to the dictators you've mentioned...
So dictators are better leaders?
That's what history generally shows. Yes. Not all, certainly. But over the long look at history, democracies are the most war prone, unhappy societies and dictators are the happiest and most peaceful. That's the long average, of course.
I agree for the most part. I was trying to make a point.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I'm not sure I think the citizens of Europe tolerate it less - if anything, their leaders are just better.
How do you think that they get better leaders?
Frankly I think it comes from the closer ties to the dictators you've mentioned...
So dictators are better leaders?
according to Scott, yes.
According to lots of studies too. That was required stuff from grad work at RIT in IT, as well. Dictators have the most risk in all directions, but on the average, have the most forces (ethics, social pressure, nobles oblige, self serving history, etc.) to make them good.
I wish I that class had been available to me. It wasn't in my track at RIT.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
On one hand this makes sense, as long as the dictator in question isn't out for world domination, ...
And also assuming that the democracy is not. Most of the world would say that the US doesn't qualify here and has, for a long time, been a democratic war machine, much like Rome and Greece were when they were Republics. Remember, Roman expansion was under the republic, the contraction was under the Emperors.
In recent times I've definitely come to believe that the US is just out for expansion... it sickens me.
How do you mean that...
In recent times your opinion has changed?
or
Your opinion is that recently the US now does this?
-
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I'm not sure I think the citizens of Europe tolerate it less - if anything, their leaders are just better.
How do you think that they get better leaders?
Frankly I think it comes from the closer ties to the dictators you've mentioned...
So dictators are better leaders?
according to Scott, yes.
According to lots of studies too. That was required stuff from grad work at RIT in IT, as well. Dictators have the most risk in all directions, but on the average, have the most forces (ethics, social pressure, nobles oblige, self serving history, etc.) to make them good.
I wish I that class had been available to me. It wasn't in my track at RIT.
International Project Management
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
On one hand this makes sense, as long as the dictator in question isn't out for world domination, ...
And also assuming that the democracy is not. Most of the world would say that the US doesn't qualify here and has, for a long time, been a democratic war machine, much like Rome and Greece were when they were Republics. Remember, Roman expansion was under the republic, the contraction was under the Emperors.
In recent times I've definitely come to believe that the US is just out for expansion... it sickens me.
How do you mean that...
In recent times your opinion has changed?
or
Your opinion is that recently the US now does this?
that my opinion has changed. I believe that corporate control of the US has driven us to be expansionist for a long time!
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
On one hand this makes sense, as long as the dictator in question isn't out for world domination, ...
And also assuming that the democracy is not. Most of the world would say that the US doesn't qualify here and has, for a long time, been a democratic war machine, much like Rome and Greece were when they were Republics. Remember, Roman expansion was under the republic, the contraction was under the Emperors.
In recent times I've definitely come to believe that the US is just out for expansion... it sickens me.
How do you mean that...
In recent times your opinion has changed?
or
Your opinion is that recently the US now does this?
that my opinion has changed. I believe that corporate control of the US has driven us to be expansionist for a long time!
We've been expansionist for a long time. The war of 1812 was the result in part of US Expansion.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I'm not sure I think the citizens of Europe tolerate it less - if anything, their leaders are just better.
How do you think that they get better leaders?
Frankly I think it comes from the closer ties to the dictators you've mentioned...
So dictators are better leaders?
according to Scott, yes.
According to lots of studies too. That was required stuff from grad work at RIT in IT, as well. Dictators have the most risk in all directions, but on the average, have the most forces (ethics, social pressure, nobles oblige, self serving history, etc.) to make them good.
I wish I that class had been available to me. It wasn't in my track at RIT.
International Project Management
Nope, unfortunately that wasn't on my track.
-
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I'm not sure I think the citizens of Europe tolerate it less - if anything, their leaders are just better.
How do you think that they get better leaders?
Frankly I think it comes from the closer ties to the dictators you've mentioned...
So dictators are better leaders?
I would be one hell of a dictator
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
On one hand this makes sense, as long as the dictator in question isn't out for world domination, ...
And also assuming that the democracy is not. Most of the world would say that the US doesn't qualify here and has, for a long time, been a democratic war machine, much like Rome and Greece were when they were Republics. Remember, Roman expansion was under the republic, the contraction was under the Emperors.
In recent times I've definitely come to believe that the US is just out for expansion... it sickens me.
How do you mean that...
In recent times your opinion has changed?
or
Your opinion is that recently the US now does this?
that my opinion has changed. I believe that corporate control of the US has driven us to be expansionist for a long time!
Gotcha. I don't think that it was corporate, though. They actually have a disinterest in that. Most wars were fought by liberals, don't forget. Only very recently have some Republicans turned on their traditional values and embraced expansionist themes. That's a pretty new thing.
Going back to Jefferson, expansion was a big thing. And I'll know you'll point to the LP and it being illegal as an example, but that's not what I mean. I mean things like the Barbary War (America's first foreign war) - although to be far, that one was commercial.
-
@coliver said:
We've been expansionist for a long time. The war of 1812 was the result in part of US Expansion.
Are you sure? The Second War of Independence was a defensive war. We had the population being taken for slaves, that wasn't going to stand (strangely.)
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
We've been expansionist for a long time. The war of 1812 was the result in part of US Expansion.
Are you sure? The Second War of Independence was a defensive war. We had the population being taken for slaves, that wasn't going to stand (strangely.)
I always thought that was small part of it. The bigger parts, from my reading, was the US expansion westward, which resulted in fighting from British supported Native American tribes, and the trade embargoes setup by the British Empire on US interests in Europe.
-
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
We've been expansionist for a long time. The war of 1812 was the result in part of US Expansion.
Are you sure? The Second War of Independence was a defensive war. We had the population being taken for slaves, that wasn't going to stand (strangely.)
I always thought that was small part of it. The bigger parts, from my reading, was the US expansion westward, which resulted in fighting from British supported Native American tribes, and the trade embargoes setup by the British Empire on US interests in Europe.
Hard to say 201 years later, but that always seems to have been a very minor factor.
