Ok, you have to be looking at the world through red, white, and blue glasses.

"We'll take over their countries and introduce our 'freedom' to them." Yeah, sure. That's an awful lot of freedom, to take over their country by force against their will. Also, Look at what happened in Iraq. Resistance kills at least 1 soldier per day. That's one country. If you hold 182 countries, how many per day is that? And I've seen horrible pictures of mutilated Iraqi children with their brains falling out of their cracked open heads. Yeah, their families will accept freedom and sing "God Bless the USA." Sure.

I hate you, Admiral. I hate you, your kind and all those patriotic Americans who reckon the rest of the world is their toilet. In effect, I hate pretty much all Americans and their country. I also hate politically correct bastards who are in the process of destroying my country with their determination to put the buglar before the victim, and the American(originally English, but we now have a bunch of wankers in power) ideal that when someone enters a building without permission, they lose all rights is one of the few American ideas I advocate at every opportunity.

Much as I hate to admit it, yours is a bloody good idea, and should you ever actually try it, you have my support. Conversely I will also spend the rest of my life trying to kill you, as I am far too used to my democracy to ever adjust to the American dream, but then you know and expect that. But eventually the people who believe in unAmerican ideals will die out(no doubt blown up) and The United States of Earth will reign. Good luck to you.

Dave

Ps I appreciate your blunt honesty. People spend their time doing things that people dont like and do it half heartedly wheras youre really going for it, no matter that 5 billion people oppose you. I like that.

I wasn't saying living under British rule would be great. I was saying I would rather live under British rule, than live under American rule. I was being sarcastic.

I do know who the "head of state" is in my country. Oh, does that surprise you? The queen and the Governor General are nothing more than figureheads, and I'm hardly a monarchist.

Are you saying you want conquest by the USA? Do you want your country to take over the world?

And, by the way, I apologize for swearing in my first review. I certainly don't agree with you, but that's no excuse for my being rude.

Sometimes it's good to have a difference of opinion, it's good to have competitive banter, but you, quite honestly, scare me.

How can you say that all nations should be modeled after America? Have you serious thought about what that entails? Have you ever considered that such an action would result in elevated crime rates and more racism throughout the world? Also, would you honestly trust the US to stay as fair and moral as you claim it to be if it were to assume the power of an imperialistic nation. Speaking of which, America ALREADY has that power, as we used imperialism to annex Hawaii and much of the western US via the Mexican Cession. Lastly, America ain't exactly the best nation to name when you talk about protecting the blessings of liberty; direct your attention to racial discrimination as well as other inadequacies we have, like our failing education system and the fact that we have the highest incarceration rate in the world.

I'll say it once again: You scare me.

Well, you certainly are strong in your opinions. So much so that I could swear at times you had taken on the persona of CINCWORLD rather than that of an Admiral. ;-)

That’s not to detract from your argument. If anything, I have found myself agreeing time and again with your overall premise that there should be a world government fashioned on the model provided by the United States. If we are to become some kind of coherent space-faring power (humanity’s’ next logical step of development) then it is imperative that there be a single world government. A nice idea to be sure, but unattainable, even on a small scale, in our own time with the process you have outlined. I submit that the reasons for this fall under two broad categories, with the first being the condition of the United States itself and the second the condition of the rest of the world.

One of the biggest reasons I hesitate on the U.S. running the world is that we have not finished developing. We have a free a relatively prosperous society thanks to that grand experiment known as the Federal Republic we have been tinkering with, and it is an experiment that has taken us over two hundred years of doodling to get to this point. Successful though it is, it is still a work in progress, and until certain changes are made it would be ill advisable of us to go conquering the world. Prime examples of such changes are:

1) Military: It’s nice that you have such confidence in our armed forces, but it is important to note that we only have so many soldiers, and they’re all trained under a doctrine of liberation rather than conquest, which are two very different strategies for making war. Our Army is capable of stomping anyone on the planet, but only under the assumption that it’s an action supported by the populace of the country in which the stomping occurs. In order to carry out conquest you not only have to take land but also hold, secure, and occupy it and this requires substantially more resources. Your “indigenous armies” would not be well trained and would probably be more likely to make a bigger mess than the one they’re helping to clean up. No, you’ve got to have U.S. soldiers on the ground, and in order to do that you would not only have to revamp doctrine and enlist more than double the number of servicemen and women we had during the peak of the Cold War, but you would also have to completely overhaul our arsenal. Without these majors changes it would not be possible for us to bring Federal Republics to the world through military means.

2) Economic: When I say economics I’m thinking specifically of taxes. Our current “progressive” tax system is laughable. Aside from its general unfairness, any lawyer worthy of the title can find loopholes without even having to look at it. Until this system is done away with (preferably replaced by a combination of a low flat tax and a “Fair Tax”) we will be unable to fund a conquering initiative to make a world wide Federal Republic and the countries that fall under our sway will be unable to afford to support themselves.

3) Social: I am thinking specifically of government “help” programs that fork out money left and right without demanding returns. Our concept of Welfare needs to be completely reexamined or we’re going to find ourselves with bills too big to pay. We also seem to have a problem with getting the government to understand that not judging a person by the color of their skin means just that; the recent Supreme Court ruling on the University of Michigan’s admissions policy makes that abundantly clear. We also have a very persistent lawyer problem requiring Tort reform. I could go on for quite awhile, but the overall problem still remains that our own society will not likely be able to support a conquering movement, either financially or morally. Come to think of it, all we would need to do is get Society back on its feet, and that would solve all of the other problems, but I’m not going to hold my breath over Society suddenly coming to its senses.

And those are just *our* limitations. Even if you managed to conquer and area there is still the question of integration. This is where the limitations of the rest of the world come in. If you try to shove progress down someone’s throat, there’s a good chance they’ll hurl it back at you. Look at Iran—the people didn’t much care about the Shah as he modernized the country, and they didn’t even go into a rage over the secret police, but as soon as he stopped forcing the women to wear burquas *damned* if he didn’t have a Revolution on his hands! They’re learning from their mistakes now, of course, but it’s still an excellent case study of what would most likely happen to us.

I suppose I could type a whole lot more, but this is about all I’m feeling up to at the moment. So, in conclusion, I agree with you that a world Federal Republic would be a good idea but that neither we nor the world are ready for it.

Let me guess, your a republican, no?

So, just let me get this straight. You're advocating the military takeover of the entire world by the United States (which I imagine certain individuals in DC, who shall remain nameless, would be keen on doing) and trying to convince us that it's for OUR benefit? If I've got it wrong, please feel free to email me and explain more clearly, but I have a ghastly feeling you are being entirely serious.

Didn't Stalin try and tell most of Eastern Europe that?

And I advise you to find another picture for your profile page, otherwise about a million other, less tactful people will email you telling you to get a life.

Hm, interesting idea.

Of course, no one is going to consider the idea of sending a conquest to introduce everyone in the world with US rule. Besides, too much power is bad.

I'll say I agree and Disagree. (Yes, I am contradicting myself)

To be quite honest, this is frightening. I have no axe to grind with the US or its citizens, but just because you have more nukes than everybody else doesn't mean you should rule the world.

Your justice system is not the perfect institution most US politicians would have you believe, and if you don't mind I like my country as it is; it's not perfect but it's a lot more competent than certain highly placed officials I could name in yours.

Hello again

I've been meaning to review this again for a while, but have had problems with seriously limited net time (I am now on my better half's computer- cablenet rocks!).

Sounds like you're still thoroughly enjoying yourself.

Plenty of unconstitutional things happened on election night 20. Check out the first chapter of Michael Moore's book 'Stupid White Men'

"In what appears to be a mass fraud committed yt the state of Florida, Bush, Harris and company not only removed thousands of black felons from the rools, they also removed thousands of black citizens who had never committed a crime in their lives- along with thousands of eligible voters who had committed only misdemeanors...Geprge would officially be credited with receiving 537 more votes than Al Gore in Florida. Is it safe to assume that the thousands of registered black and Hispanic voters barred from the plls might have made the difference if they had been allowed to vote- and cost Bush the election? Without a doubt' (Moore p4, 6)

Fox News Channel officially declared Bush the winner BEFORE the votes were counted. Other networks followed came all the fuss over the absentee ballots, with votes being counted that should not have been. I can't be bothered going into it in detail here- look it up in the book if you don't believe me.

Calling the president a moron was a cheap shot, I admit, though I truly believe that he is (see ch. 2 of Stupid White Men- the man is barely able to string together a coherent sentence and mixes up the names of countries and heads of state, things which it is fairly important for the president to know!) and I do find it disturbing that anyone voted for him. My main beef with the man and his party is those policies which negatively affect the rest of the world, such as leading us into war (our own current government, which I didn't vote in, followed suit, which annoyed me) and screwing up environmental treaties (such as the Kyoto Protocol on Greenhouse gases) which would have benefited everyone.

'Yes the welfare system is in a shambles... it's already too much like what the rest of the world does' That's a bizarre generalisation. There are many many different systems of welfare in different countries. For a good model look to the Netherlands or Cuba. I don't care who made your welfare system that way. I was just pointing out that until the US fixes its problems at home you ought to put a hold on any ideas of world domination.

I am very well aware that Americans have the legal (moral rights being a different thing entirely) right to bear arms. My point was that I don't believe you SHOULD. Just restating that you do isn't any kind of argument.

I don't much care whether you were serious or not, I was just up for an argument. Don't tell me you weren't! Why else would you post something like this?

I don't like you. But that would be a flame. So I say: I don't like this essay. It smells rotten.

You have neglected to acknowledge the opposition in your original essay. You knew that people would not agree and that is why

your argument is not as strong as you think it is. Not including an opposing point of view is the worst thing any debater can

do. It tells the listener that this person really has no idea what he/she is talking about. It means that the persons has

failed to research the topic and has failed to give a well rounded essay. This is not so much of a critism, but for of a

suggestion, because this is an essential part of any debate. I will not say anymore.

Admiral you are, eh? Well, before you say that I'm a coward for sending an anonymous review, I would like to clear a few

things up. First of all, you are an opinion guy. You like your opinion and have a death-grip on it. That's why the opposition

remains so strong. There are flaws in your reasoning, period. No side is completely, irrevocably correct. That is why it is

my duty to inform to you of these matters. If I were to reveal my true identity then a rebuke would probably (note probably)

be in-store for me. I will not tolerate such an idea because that is not the idea. When you defend your point, a rebuttal is

most certainly needed. Whether or not that rebuttal is sufficient proof to sway the audience to your point of view is another

thing. You are a debater, no doubt about that. I don't like debaters. I'm a hypocrisy. What else is there to say?

Your first major argument is about freedom. Freedom, as defined by Noah Webster, is: "1. The state of being free; exemption

from the power and control of another; liberty; independence." Now, let us suppose that when you refer to freedom, freedom is

the most commonly used definition: 1. Then, freedom would mean that a country would be allowed to do anything it wants, yet a

person would not. This is one of my long standing arguments. Freedom should not be used in this type of argument! Freedom is

complete, and that means that we would be setting up a Kangaroo Court, with everyone for themselves. Freedom is not correct.

Now, I know certain people will say that the other definitions of freedom would negate my argument. Well, first let me state

this: freedom is a word! If you replace the word freedom with something more specific, we wouldn't be able to argue any

technicalities. In law, this is so important. The slightest miswording can completely change the meaning of the document.

People in debates take advantage of this. Though you try to address this, you continue to use it throughout your article.

Good job.

On a second note, you aren't exactly above twisting the words of your reviewers to your own specifications either. Laurie

said "She would rather". That is her opinion, and there is no use bludgeoning it to death. Look at me! I'm bludgeoning your

argument to death. Well? Of course! How could I have been so stupid! The answer is so obvious! I am improperly reasoning.

Hmm, you are also improperly reasoning! See! We all make mistakes! Twisting those mistakes isn't going to do you any good.

The next one, Aidan, is one that you singled out. Why? Because his review had one line that you didn't like. With that, you

blasted him, just like the US blasted Iraq when they thought there were weapons of mass destruction. You blasted Wyrd too,

with only one sentence to back up your claim. You are fighting an impossible war here. You're flashy tactics and "I agree,

but your wrong" only makes people more infuriated, like me, and that means more rebukes that will become harder and harder to

combat.

With that, we can see that you are just a debater with a huge idea. What happened to debater's with huge ideas? I don't know.

But I certainly know which way this is going. This is your opinion. Now, let's see why this is a ridiculous debate:

1: It is an opinion, so you can't prove it, no matter how condescendingly or how viciously you put it.

2: Power corrupts. Simply put, you can't put a person in charge and expect him to act fairly and justly. If he does, then

someone will assassinate him because "they don't agree with it"

3: On the same track, a group of people won't act fair if they're in charge of the world

4: Ignorance cannot sustain Imperialism or Democracy

5: The US will fall. With every empire EVER in the history of earth, if it went up, it went down.

6: We won't reform. We care too much about money to do that

7: The world will eventually die, either from the sun or from earth

8: We will eventually go extinct

9: No one cares about us humans

10: The universe will end

11: We are insignificant

But, since we are living and have nothing better to do, why not?

The world ends now, and the US conquering the entire world will not do, because it will never gain 100% approval from

everyone, because it is an OPINION.

Don't be opinionated, be factual.

Why don't you rebut me? I will enjoy that even more. HA! HA! HA!

This is the anonymous reviewer, signing off.

Excellent, perfectly put...

I must admit, that would be nice. But in all honesty, I just don't think it would work out. Too many speed-bumps, I think. I also like the diversity of the world. I love the Frechies for hating us, makes life a little more interesting, don't you think? OK, I admit, the Middle-East is really screwed up and could really use some Democratic influence. But I'm not going to wake up in the middle of the night worrying whether or not Saddam is going to come back form the dead and kill me in my sleep. And who do I have to thank for that? The great United States of America. The home of the brave. The greatest natios, or should I say nations, to ever grace the face of the planet. Although, the United States of Earth sounds really good.

Keep writing!

Arrivederci!

-Terra Tigra-

Hmm, well argued but you still haven't done well enough. I was referring at least in large part to a nuclear threat. I will admit that SDI drastically improves our defense and the B2s are good for a pre-emptive. However, both have flaws. Instance, last I checked the U.S. signed the ABM treaty because the USSR was capable of overwhelming missile defense with sheer numbers. I really don't advise finding out if they still have that ability by launching B2s while hoping that they don't see us coming. Gambling on a nuclear holocaust without exceptional need is a bad idea. Furthermore if everyone lauches on us, then it may well add up to enough if Russia falls short.

Next, I think your definition of strategic threat and mine are vastly different. Not counting WMDs which are either in terrorist hands, and conquering the world will make more terrorists trust me, the nations that can threaten us effectively with WMDs aren't stupid enough to use them unless we start start something. Threatun us inneffectively maybe, but I expect most prefer not to rule a parking lot and therefore won't push their luck. Discounting those, the next worst anyone is right now is an obstacle. They can't threaten force and no one should be dumb enough to threaten us economically. Something about if our economy goes everyone else will follow and we'll recover first should preclude that. Diplomatic threats are a side item. Without an economic or military threat, the worst anyone can do is yell at us very loudly. Forgive me, if I don't find being yelled at a major threat. However these protections make us untouchable only so long as the world doesn't believe we're out to conquer it. If it thinks we're going to try that then chances are it won't care about the above, it will just try and kill us.

Alright someone else try and argue practicality here, I'm getting tired of it and I'm sure that there is at least one other person who can debate practicality at least somewhat effectively.

Final comment: This is a side item but it annoyed me so here goes. Your comment on Indian reservations is at least partially innaccurate and or incomplete. I can't say anything about most of the tribes but the Cherokee at least were put in one because Andy Jackson was an oathbreaker that should have been shot. They went to the courts and won a case to keep their land, Jackson ordered the military to move them anyway so that a particular state could take their land. Seeing as it was a civil matter and the ruling was given by the Supreme Court, Jackson was in violation of his oath to support and uphold the Constitution since he ignored a decisicion from the one body that had the legal authority to make one. Result, long unpleasant murderous march for a particular tribe and I have a lasting ill opinion of Andy Jackson. And if anyone says a word about being politically correct in response to me preferring the more familiar term of Indian for some of my ancestors, I have a tall building for them to leap off of.

Ya know... I looked at my other review (Anonymous... I'm a coward, what can I say?) and I realized how timid I sounded. When I said I thought it was a bit much, I gave no reason for that belief. Here it is : I used to belong to a church with the doctrine as basically being to look for prophesy to be fulfilled (a little odd, I know). This being the case, I have the book of Revelations almost memorized. If anybody knows anything about this book of the Bible, they know that it concerns the end of the world. I think what you're saying would work, that's the thing. If it works as well as you predict it would, then that would signal that the world is about finished according to the prophesies of Revelations. That's why any talk of a world united in that way gives me the shakes. Just like last chapter, this one was awesome... it took 27 pages to print, but was awesome.

By the way, I appreciate the review you gave me and Oriana on our discussion. That's why the grammar (I could never spell) stunk. It was an internet conversation and she just decided to post it.