NationStates Jolt Archive

MESSAGE TO THE WORLD:

Oh, for the love of God/Buddha/Allah/Nobody/FSM/Whatever, will you all just knock it off? I mean, damn. J-just-just DAMN! Seriously.

I have had it with you mothers and your little farce of 'negotations', 'sercuity', 'peace talks' and 'pre-emptive war'.

Can we ALL JUST FORKING CUT THE CRAP ALREADY AND GO TO WAR WITH EVERYONE?

Do we really need to be fooled into thinking we're doing this realpolitik crap for some vaguely-defined 'greater good'? Why not just come clean and admit we're all after money, power and resources?

That's why I suggest all nations, private military organisations, UN 'peacekeepers' and terrorists, effective immediately, declare war on all others for the spoils of conquest.

Here's some reasons why:

1) France would most likely be the first European nation to get screwed over because of this idea. No one likes France, right?

2) The War on Terror is really just an extension of the War on Everyone. And besides, once a single united nation/corperation/regime/whatever is left, where are the terrorists going to be? In the breadtin?

3) Everyone supports terrorism. Think about it: since terrorism is only effective due to reactions against it, anyone reacting to it is supporting it. Soldiers fighting against terror is reacting, watching news coverage of a war on terror or of a terror attack is reacting, talking about terrorism is reacting and being a terrorist is a sort of reacting. Once everyone's either dead or on the same side (both of which can the only possible outcomes to the war on everyone), there'll be no reacting to terrorism.

4) The war on everyone would result in some sort of total world peace for at least some period of time. Name me one possible immediate war that would happen after the war on everyone.

Is it the oil that concerns people?
Well, it shouldn't. Once we own all the oil in the world, we can give it to Texaco and Exxon, and they'll sell it for perfectly reasonable prices because corporations are good.

Is it the rhetoric that concerns people? This is the beautiful part. There hasn't been any rhetoric yet! Nobody will see this shit coming. Yet everyone really wants it, deep down in that dark corner of their soul. Prove me wrong with references to world history. Can't? I thought so. Everyone wants to go to war with everyone in some manner, no matter what their ideology, age, lifestyle, sexual orientation or intelligence.

Is it the certain death of everyone's civilians that concerns people? Who the fuck cares? It's not like they're on our side anyways.

Discuss.

You're silly. :)

Yet everyone really wants it, deep down in that dark corner of their soul. Prove me wrong with references to world history. Can't? I thought so. Everyone wants to go to war with everyone in some manner, no matter what their ideology, age, lifestyle, sexual orientation or intelligence.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." - Sun Tzu

Sun Tzu is an apparent exception, and one exception in world history is what you asked for.

You're silly. :)

O RLY?

O RLY?

YA RLY.

O RLY?

YA RLY! :eek:

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." - Sun Tzu

Sun Tzu is an apparent exception, and one exception in world history is what you asked for.

Screw Sun Tzu, I have money!

Screw Sun Tzu, I have money!

Where from?! :eek:

Screw Sun Tzu, I have money!

War with everyone at once is stupid, war with everyone over time is smart.

War with everyone at once is stupid, war with everyone over time is smart.

But it would be a lot more honest and quicker to just have the war at once with everyone involved!

But it would be a lot more honest and quicker to just have the war at once with everyone involved!

But you'd LOSE! And fuck honesty, honesty is not a valid strategy.

So say like Canada is attacking the U.S. and then China is attacking the U.S. but then China is also attacking Taiwan, Japan, and the Koreas, and they're prolly gunna also attack Canada whilst France, Italy and Russia attack Pakistan and India whereby they were already attacking South Africa, Namibia, and Eritrea but Canada decides to attack Australia whilst attacking the U.S. and then New Zealand begins to invade Poland who were already attacking Argentina and Aruba, they've already lost to the wrath of Guyana and Singapore who are on their way to attacking the U.S. and Mexico, so really... who wins in the end?

Where from?! :eek:

From, you know, my wallet. And bank account. And stuff.

From, you know, my wallet. And bank account. And stuff.

You lie!

[SNIP] who wins in the end?

Everyone, because they're the last humans remaining and therefore their ideology/nation/regime/whatever is by default the strongest in the world.

Everyone, because they're the last humans remaining and therefore their ideology/nation/regime/whatever is by default the strongest in the world.

unless no one is left.

So say like Canada is attacking the U.S. and then China is attacking the U.S. but then China is also attacking Taiwan, Japan, and the Koreas, and they're prolly gunna also attack Canada whilst France, Italy and Russia attack Pakistan and India whereby they were already attacking South Africa, Namibia, and Eritrea but Canada decides to attack Australia whilst attacking the U.S. and then New Zealand begins to invade Poland who were already attacking Argentina and Aruba, they've already lost to the wrath of Guyana and Singapore who are on their way to attacking the U.S. and Mexico, so really... who wins in the end?

Iceland....duh.

Screw Sun Tzu, I have money!

And the rules, them too.

Nobody will see this shit coming. Yet everyone really wants it, deep down in that dark corner of their soul. Prove me wrong with references to world history.Machiavelli not only beat you to this concept by several hundred years, he even wrote a how-to book about it called The Discourses (http://www.amazon.com/Discourses-Niccolo-Machiavelli/dp/0140444289/sr=8-1/qid=1162193355/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-2454020-6107027?ie=UTF8&s=books). Sorry man. :(

(SNIP) who wins in the end?

Well, I do believe the Aussies would win. All they'd have to do is fall back on Aboriginee knowledge, retreat to the outback - where NO ONE is gonna look for you, trust me - and wait the whole stupid thing out. I mean, come on, what other strategy can match this one in perfectness? :)

But I have a much simpler method of solving the world's problems: Football games. Like, soccer, for all North Americans concerned. Really, it would be great! Oil prices too high cause the Saudi's are overcharging or something? Challenge em to a game! If you win, the prices go lower! Is the Iraqi dictator gassing his own people? Don't like it? Football time! The Khmer Rouge being too nasty? To the stadium!

So fewer people'd die. I mean, I know the fans go crazy, but those are acceptable losses. ;)

(I'd probly be one of the few casualties! :D )

France would most likely be the first European nation to get screwed over because of this idea. No one likes France, right?

Once we own all the oil in the world, we can give it to Texaco and Exxon, and they'll sell it for perfectly reasonable prices because corporations are good.

Is it the certain death of everyone's civilians that concerns people?
It's not like they're on our side anyways.

Discuss.

If it is sarcasm, well, it is a nice bit of it...

Anyway:
1.HANDS OFF FRANCE! Vive la Republique! Where am I getting my foie gras? My Camembert? My Pommeau? And who are we Italians going to beat at the next soccer world cup? ;)

2."We", who? From the Exxon & Texaco bit, I'll assume you mean the US. Do you think that the US will survive more than 30 minutes if in the "War on Everyone", "Everyone" includes all other nuclear powers in the world?

3.Oh, well, you see, at the risk of being called a solipsist, I'm very concerned with the death of that civilian that is myself.:D

who wins in the end?


Italy of course, and here's why.

1.In a total war, you have to be very vigilant.
2.To be vigilant, it is a good idea to keep awake.
3.To keep awake, you have to drink coffee.
4.Italy's got the best coffee around.
5.So everyone wants to ally with Italy before the others can.
6.And the leaders of all countries in the world fly in their jets to Italy at maximum speed.
7.But the diabolical italian air traffic control is on strike, as usual.
8.So all nation leaders' jets crash together and all people aboard die in a huge fireball over the Tirreno sea.
9.So the world is finally rid of warmongers.
10.And a new age of peace and plenty through pizza, pasta, wine and coffee begins...

unless no one is left.

That is too optimistic to even hope for aloud

But what if there are 2 groups of people left standing, 1 of which is in, say, Africa and the other in North America. What then?

They would first have to figure out if there even are any people left besides themselves, and doing so without little or no surviving technology, infrastructure, knowledge and the likes will be quite hard. Secondly, assuming that they - or either of the 2 groups - manages to find the other group and, assuming that despite the fact that they are the only surviving elements of the human race they still want to kill eachother, how would they reach the other group without virtually having any still properly functioning means of transportation at their disposal?

My guess is they won't. They'll just rebuild society as they see fit for some several centuries, after which they will make contact again, eshtablish relations and ultimately kill eachother again.


Rejoice for humanity!

Machiavelli not only beat you to this concept by several hundred years, he even wrote a how-to book about it called The Discourses (http://www.amazon.com/Discourses-Niccolo-Machiavelli/dp/0140444289/sr=8-1/qid=1162193355/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-2454020-6107027?ie=UTF8&s=books). Sorry man. :(

If he's so smart, how come he died twice?

unless no one is left.

Then the next smartest animal species alive wins.

Italy of course, and here's why.

1.In a total war, you have to be very vigilant.
2.To be vigilant, it is a good idea to keep awake.
3.To keep awake, you have to drink coffee.
4.Italy's got the best coffee around.
5.So everyone wants to ally with Italy before the others can.
6.And the leaders of all countries in the world fly in their jets to Italy at maximum speed.
7.But the diabolical italian air traffic control is on strike, as usual.
8.So all nation leaders' jets crash together and all people aboard die in a huge fireball over the Tirreno sea.
9.So the world is finally rid of warmongers.
10.And a new age of peace and plenty through pizza, pasta, wine and coffee begins...

Really? Italy is a peaceful country?

No... I say Italy will get pwned... :p

this all on all war stuff doesn't sound like too much fun to me.

Machiavelli not only beat you to this concept by several hundred years, he even wrote a how-to book about it called The Discourses (http://www.amazon.com/Discourses-Niccolo-Machiavelli/dp/0140444289/sr=8-1/qid=1162193355/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-2454020-6107027?ie=UTF8&s=books). Sorry man. :(

C'mon who really reads that crapola? It would be a total blindside.

To the OP: Why? Even if someone does end up the victor, it will be pointless. It ain't world domination if there isn't a world to dominate.

Really? Italy is a peaceful country?

Oh yes. Now that we've discovered that we can invade the whole world with pizza, we don't need to invade poorer countries anymore. And everyone is happy while eating pizza!