Better than warfare.

Discussion in 'Political Science' started by Brett Nortje, Feb 17, 2017.

  1. Brett Nortje

    Brett Nortje Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Often, the president is the controller of the military. with that in mind, there is a much better way to expand their borders or make war. in today's information age, the ways of winning territory are very different to putting up a fence and hoping you find gold or oil in that territory, as, the natural resources are not as valuable as cities and towns.

    So, it stands to reason that wars are fought about cities and towns, yes? this will grant you tax money, guaranteed, and also income taxes and so forth. if you were to be faced with annihilating a city to beat your enemy, you would lose that city's ability to generate money immediately, yes?

    Now, if you were to 'buy that city,' some of the businesses inside of it, then you would make money. instead of paying for bombs, paying for rebuilding and paying for capital, you would be able to 'pay for appreciating assets,' yes? this would see 'your empire' gain wealth, and then you could buy the cities, at a price, as you would own everything inside them - state owned? - so it would be on your land as if it were an embassy, of course.
     
  2. Ole Ole

    Ole Ole Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2016
    Messages:
    2,976
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Or home war. In West coast.
     
  3. Brett Nortje

    Brett Nortje Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    48
    When it comes to conflict resolution, obviously there is more to be gained in a time of peace than war, as this is only land and buildings, not the operations within them. without terrorists or militants running into buildings to disturb the peace, there will be nowhere to hide, and, the wars would be over much quicker.

    So, with my attempt at 'a guide to conflict resolution,'t here should be a plan to satisfy everyone financially - wealth wise - and of course in being represented - power wise - yes? the driving force behind recruitment is to tell the youth or able men that the war is something that god would support them in, that they are blessed - that they, as they see the world, is a agreed upon resolution for the group they are with, and, that of course means they are right. these people want to see changes around them, without changing themselves, as, they see themselves as right, of course. if they were to try something new, being open minded and positive about others, they might like the new changes, but, these wars always start with them being told they are better or right, yes?

    If they are right, then everyone else is wrong, then they feel justified. then, the real problems start - they will be wooed by the dreams of money and power, and forget about being right, but, saying that their moral standpoint is the whole reason they are fighting - bull if you ask me! luckily, as they dream, they can be bought, sleeping on fields and hiding your face takes it's toll on anybody.

    Now, if these are the new drives for them, that they want to be imbursed in some way for their needs - which are the same as anybody else's needs - they can be bought, yes? the problem is sorting out the price, of course. the price should be power and money, so, organizing them a party in the area they are from - returning home heroes and proudly representing their villages in parliament - and a few million dollars for them to start their own businesses, and, financial advise into spending their money, would get the war over in no time, saving lives and the economy too, allowing for a richer future, as, countries usually do not flourish in times of war.
     

Share This Page