|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:14 pm
So can you guys see any advantage to having a king/dictator over having a democratic system of government? I definitely think that democracy is the best system and the only way to go, but the way I see it, having a monarchy certainly has it's advantages. And I think that if you actually manage to find a benevolent ruler that cares more about his country and his people than himself, that country would be better off giving him absolute power. It's just that such men are extremely rare.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:16 pm
To best serve ones country as a whole is to completely disregard most of one's own needs. If such a man exists, I would gladly give him my full commitment. Since none live today, democracy is a must.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 8:08 am
It pretty much depends on the person in power, and as King said, there are very few who would comit themselves completely to their people and country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 6:04 pm
Archduke wonderwaffle It pretty much depends on the person in power, and as King said, there are very few who would comit themselves completely to their people and country. Yeah. Closest examples I could think of for someone who would be the perfect absolute ruler would be someone like Reagan or Churchill, and they still had some flaws. VERY few, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:14 pm
King of the Wooden Spoons Archduke wonderwaffle It pretty much depends on the person in power, and as King said, there are very few who would comit themselves completely to their people and country. Yeah. Closest examples I could think of for someone who would be the perfect absolute ruler would be someone like Reagan or Churchill, and they still had some flaws. VERY few, of course. I would feel comfortable with Churchill as my king. Someone like George Washington or Abe Lincoln could probably also be trusted with absolute power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 3:20 am
death angel712 King of the Wooden Spoons Archduke wonderwaffle It pretty much depends on the person in power, and as King said, there are very few who would comit themselves completely to their people and country. Yeah. Closest examples I could think of for someone who would be the perfect absolute ruler would be someone like Reagan or Churchill, and they still had some flaws. VERY few, of course. I would feel comfortable with Churchill as my king. Someone like George Washington or Abe Lincoln could probably also be trusted with absolute power. Chruchill had a disorder similar to bloodlust, he wanted to invade Russia as soon as the war had ended. That's why he was elected out so quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 3:45 am
Archduke wonderwaffle death angel712 King of the Wooden Spoons Archduke wonderwaffle It pretty much depends on the person in power, and as King said, there are very few who would comit themselves completely to their people and country. Yeah. Closest examples I could think of for someone who would be the perfect absolute ruler would be someone like Reagan or Churchill, and they still had some flaws. VERY few, of course. I would feel comfortable with Churchill as my king. Someone like George Washington or Abe Lincoln could probably also be trusted with absolute power. Chruchill had a disorder similar to bloodlust, he wanted to invade Russia as soon as the war had ended. That's why he was elected out so quickly. Too bad others didn't see it that way, or we may have taken out the Soviets early and avoided the Korean and Vietnam wars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 4:03 am
King of the Wooden Spoons Archduke wonderwaffle death angel712 King of the Wooden Spoons Archduke wonderwaffle It pretty much depends on the person in power, and as King said, there are very few who would comit themselves completely to their people and country. Yeah. Closest examples I could think of for someone who would be the perfect absolute ruler would be someone like Reagan or Churchill, and they still had some flaws. VERY few, of course. I would feel comfortable with Churchill as my king. Someone like George Washington or Abe Lincoln could probably also be trusted with absolute power. Chruchill had a disorder similar to bloodlust, he wanted to invade Russia as soon as the war had ended. That's why he was elected out so quickly. Too bad others didn't see it that way, or we may have taken out the Soviets early and avoided the Korean and Vietnam wars. If we didn't have the nukes they would have slaughtered us all. neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:57 pm
Archduke wonderwaffle King of the Wooden Spoons Archduke wonderwaffle death angel712 King of the Wooden Spoons Archduke wonderwaffle It pretty much depends on the person in power, and as King said, there are very few who would comit themselves completely to their people and country. Yeah. Closest examples I could think of for someone who would be the perfect absolute ruler would be someone like Reagan or Churchill, and they still had some flaws. VERY few, of course. I would feel comfortable with Churchill as my king. Someone like George Washington or Abe Lincoln could probably also be trusted with absolute power. Chruchill had a disorder similar to bloodlust, he wanted to invade Russia as soon as the war had ended. That's why he was elected out so quickly. Too bad others didn't see it that way, or we may have taken out the Soviets early and avoided the Korean and Vietnam wars. If we didn't have the nukes they would have slaughtered us all. neutral First of all, we did have the nuke, and they didn't. Second, I completely disagree. The United States at the time had an enormous industrial capacity, as well as good leadership. The Russians had s**t loads of troops, and incompetent leadership. It probably would have been a good idea to invade Russia and take them out of the picture. So, I'm with Wooden Spoons on this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 2:12 pm
death angel712 Archduke wonderwaffle King of the Wooden Spoons Archduke wonderwaffle death angel712 I would feel comfortable with Churchill as my king. Someone like George Washington or Abe Lincoln could probably also be trusted with absolute power. Chruchill had a disorder similar to bloodlust, he wanted to invade Russia as soon as the war had ended. That's why he was elected out so quickly. Too bad others didn't see it that way, or we may have taken out the Soviets early and avoided the Korean and Vietnam wars. If we didn't have the nukes they would have slaughtered us all. neutral First of all, we did have the nuke, and they didn't. Second, I completely disagree. The United States at the time had an enormous industrial capacity, as well as good leadership. The Russians had s**t loads of troops, and incompetent leadership. It probably would have been a good idea to invade Russia and take them out of the picture. So, I'm with Wooden Spoons on this one. I meant atom bombs. True, the US had a better trained and equipped military, they would have to conscript to fight against the red army/generic Russian militia. The battle would have been long and bloody but I could see Russia using civilians and soldiers from the eastern European countries they had occupied as troops. That would be a LOT of manpower. Also, the extra land would mean extra resources and therefore, extra industry. I imagine the USSR would suffer incredibly heavy casualties, but they would push back the allies. Despite this, the country would be crippled and prone to another attack, is the allies were to muster one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 2:59 pm
Archduke wonderwaffle death angel712 Archduke wonderwaffle King of the Wooden Spoons Archduke wonderwaffle death angel712 I would feel comfortable with Churchill as my king. Someone like George Washington or Abe Lincoln could probably also be trusted with absolute power. Chruchill had a disorder similar to bloodlust, he wanted to invade Russia as soon as the war had ended. That's why he was elected out so quickly. Too bad others didn't see it that way, or we may have taken out the Soviets early and avoided the Korean and Vietnam wars. If we didn't have the nukes they would have slaughtered us all. neutral First of all, we did have the nuke, and they didn't. Second, I completely disagree. The United States at the time had an enormous industrial capacity, as well as good leadership. The Russians had s**t loads of troops, and incompetent leadership. It probably would have been a good idea to invade Russia and take them out of the picture. So, I'm with Wooden Spoons on this one. I meant atom bombs. True, the US had a better trained and equipped military, they would have to conscript to fight against the red army/generic Russian militia. The battle would have been long and bloody but I could see Russia using civilians and soldiers from the eastern European countries they had occupied as troops. That would be a LOT of manpower. Also, the extra land would mean extra resources and therefore, extra industry. I imagine the USSR would suffer incredibly heavy casualties, but they would push back the allies. Despite this, the country would be crippled and prone to another attack, is the allies were to muster one. There were Russians that wanted to fight with the Germans to liberate them from their oppressive communist government, until the SS started killing babies. If we started pushing into Russia, it's a near certainty that there would Russian civilians eager and willing to help us. And I mean a lot of Russian civilians. Not to mention the fact that any Russian soldier that surrenders would have better living conditions in our custody than they would on the front, meaning a lot of them would be surrendering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 3:25 pm
death angel712 Archduke wonderwaffle death angel712 Archduke wonderwaffle King of the Wooden Spoons Too bad others didn't see it that way, or we may have taken out the Soviets early and avoided the Korean and Vietnam wars. If we didn't have the nukes they would have slaughtered us all. neutral First of all, we did have the nuke, and they didn't. Second, I completely disagree. The United States at the time had an enormous industrial capacity, as well as good leadership. The Russians had s**t loads of troops, and incompetent leadership. It probably would have been a good idea to invade Russia and take them out of the picture. So, I'm with Wooden Spoons on this one. I meant atom bombs. True, the US had a better trained and equipped military, they would have to conscript to fight against the red army/generic Russian militia. The battle would have been long and bloody but I could see Russia using civilians and soldiers from the eastern European countries they had occupied as troops. That would be a LOT of manpower. Also, the extra land would mean extra resources and therefore, extra industry. I imagine the USSR would suffer incredibly heavy casualties, but they would push back the allies. Despite this, the country would be crippled and prone to another attack, is the allies were to muster one. There were Russians that wanted to fight with the Germans to liberate them from their oppressive communist government, until the SS started killing babies. If we started pushing into Russia, it's a near certainty that there would Russian civilians eager and willing to help us. And I mean a lot of Russian civilians. Not to mention the fact that any Russian soldier that surrenders would have better living conditions in our custody than they would on the front, meaning a lot of them would be surrendering. True, however we would have practically been up against human waves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 4:15 pm
Archduke wonderwaffle death angel712 Archduke wonderwaffle death angel712 Archduke wonderwaffle King of the Wooden Spoons Too bad others didn't see it that way, or we may have taken out the Soviets early and avoided the Korean and Vietnam wars. If we didn't have the nukes they would have slaughtered us all. neutral First of all, we did have the nuke, and they didn't. Second, I completely disagree. The United States at the time had an enormous industrial capacity, as well as good leadership. The Russians had s**t loads of troops, and incompetent leadership. It probably would have been a good idea to invade Russia and take them out of the picture. So, I'm with Wooden Spoons on this one. I meant atom bombs. True, the US had a better trained and equipped military, they would have to conscript to fight against the red army/generic Russian militia. The battle would have been long and bloody but I could see Russia using civilians and soldiers from the eastern European countries they had occupied as troops. That would be a LOT of manpower. Also, the extra land would mean extra resources and therefore, extra industry. I imagine the USSR would suffer incredibly heavy casualties, but they would push back the allies. Despite this, the country would be crippled and prone to another attack, is the allies were to muster one. There were Russians that wanted to fight with the Germans to liberate them from their oppressive communist government, until the SS started killing babies. If we started pushing into Russia, it's a near certainty that there would Russian civilians eager and willing to help us. And I mean a lot of Russian civilians. Not to mention the fact that any Russian soldier that surrenders would have better living conditions in our custody than they would on the front, meaning a lot of them would be surrendering. True, however we would have practically been up against human waves. Let me remind you that the German military came very very close to taking over Russia with less men than we would have been able to put in the fight, because of their superior leaders. Not only was our leadership just as good, but our weapons were superior to German weapons. And our industrial might was unmatched, two thirds of all vessels afloat on the ocean were made in America when the war ended.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:24 pm
death angel712 Archduke wonderwaffle death angel712 Archduke wonderwaffle death angel712 First of all, we did have the nuke, and they didn't. Second, I completely disagree. The United States at the time had an enormous industrial capacity, as well as good leadership. The Russians had s**t loads of troops, and incompetent leadership. It probably would have been a good idea to invade Russia and take them out of the picture. So, I'm with Wooden Spoons on this one. I meant atom bombs. True, the US had a better trained and equipped military, they would have to conscript to fight against the red army/generic Russian militia. The battle would have been long and bloody but I could see Russia using civilians and soldiers from the eastern European countries they had occupied as troops. That would be a LOT of manpower. Also, the extra land would mean extra resources and therefore, extra industry. I imagine the USSR would suffer incredibly heavy casualties, but they would push back the allies. Despite this, the country would be crippled and prone to another attack, is the allies were to muster one. There were Russians that wanted to fight with the Germans to liberate them from their oppressive communist government, until the SS started killing babies. If we started pushing into Russia, it's a near certainty that there would Russian civilians eager and willing to help us. And I mean a lot of Russian civilians. Not to mention the fact that any Russian soldier that surrenders would have better living conditions in our custody than they would on the front, meaning a lot of them would be surrendering. True, however we would have practically been up against human waves. Let me remind you that the German military came very very close to taking over Russia with less men than we would have been able to put in the fight, because of their superior leaders. Not only was our leadership just as good, but our weapons were superior to German weapons. And our industrial might was unmatched, two thirds of all vessels afloat on the ocean were made in America when the war ended. Very true. Russia almost fell to the Blitzkreig strategy of storming your enemies and taking them out before they could mount a counter-assault. German Panzer units would have rolled over Moscow if not for the Russian millitia thinking ahead and digging a network of large and random trenches that the tanks simply rolled into and got stuck in. If not for that foresight, Russia may have fallen to Germany. Numbers mean little when faced with true strategy. 300 was based on an actual battle, Thermopoli I believe, in which 300 Spartans and Athenians stayed behind to defend a canyon against the invading Persian hordes, taking out somewhere around 10-20 thousand and allowing their remaining forces to go back for reinforcements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:15 pm
King of the Wooden Spoons death angel712 Archduke wonderwaffle death angel712 Archduke wonderwaffle death angel712 First of all, we did have the nuke, and they didn't. Second, I completely disagree. The United States at the time had an enormous industrial capacity, as well as good leadership. The Russians had s**t loads of troops, and incompetent leadership. It probably would have been a good idea to invade Russia and take them out of the picture. So, I'm with Wooden Spoons on this one. I meant atom bombs. True, the US had a better trained and equipped military, they would have to conscript to fight against the red army/generic Russian militia. The battle would have been long and bloody but I could see Russia using civilians and soldiers from the eastern European countries they had occupied as troops. That would be a LOT of manpower. Also, the extra land would mean extra resources and therefore, extra industry. I imagine the USSR would suffer incredibly heavy casualties, but they would push back the allies. Despite this, the country would be crippled and prone to another attack, is the allies were to muster one. There were Russians that wanted to fight with the Germans to liberate them from their oppressive communist government, until the SS started killing babies. If we started pushing into Russia, it's a near certainty that there would Russian civilians eager and willing to help us. And I mean a lot of Russian civilians. Not to mention the fact that any Russian soldier that surrenders would have better living conditions in our custody than they would on the front, meaning a lot of them would be surrendering. True, however we would have practically been up against human waves. Let me remind you that the German military came very very close to taking over Russia with less men than we would have been able to put in the fight, because of their superior leaders. Not only was our leadership just as good, but our weapons were superior to German weapons. And our industrial might was unmatched, two thirds of all vessels afloat on the ocean were made in America when the war ended. Very true. Russia almost fell to the Blitzkreig strategy of storming your enemies and taking them out before they could mount a counter-assault. German Panzer units would have rolled over Moscow if not for the Russian millitia thinking ahead and digging a network of large and random trenches that the tanks simply rolled into and got stuck in. If not for that foresight, Russia may have fallen to Germany. Numbers mean little when faced with true strategy. 300 was based on an actual battle, Thermopoli I believe, in which 300 Spartans and Athenians stayed behind to defend a canyon against the invading Persian hordes, taking out somewhere around 10-20 thousand and allowing their remaining forces to go back for reinforcements. There were about 12 hundred Greeks from some other city there as well, but there were 300 hoplites, which were elite fighting men and the real reason why the persians could not come through. The first time they tried, the Persians had an army of a million men. The second time they tried, they had an army of 2 million. They only finally won because they found a pass through the mountains and were able to surround the Spartans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
