Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Imagine that you're a great and powerful King (or Queen) and you have a vast and skillful military. You've enter many battles and your generals are notorious great warriors. Let's just cut to the chase....

...You can kick major ass!

Well, so happens that there are neighbor lands which remain neutral. It's open for anyone to claim. What would you choose?

Colonization or Conquer?

As usual I reserve my own opinion. But for this one.....I'd say Conquer! The rule of the mighty is greater than the rule of the equal.

Colonize, and insight open rebellion in one of those new colonies. Proceed to crush all resistance and punish that colony for its disobedience. The others will fall in line.

I need more context.

Is this an era of war? Is someone trying to start wars simply for conquering land elsewhere?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Imagine that you're a great and powerful King (or Queen) and you have a vast and skillful military. You've enter many battles and your generals are notorious great warriors. Let's just cut to the chase....

...You can kick major ass!

Well, so happens that there are neighbor lands which remain neutral. It's open for anyone to claim. What would you choose?

Colonization or Conquer?

As usual I reserve my own opinion. But for this one.....I'd say Conquer! The rule of the mighty is greater than the rule of the equal.

Take the Roman approach, give them the option of submitting, while allowing them to keep their religions, customs and local laws in place, as long as they accept my law(s) and ruler-ship above all else if/when the two conflict. If they refuse, conquer, then rebuild and do the above. Less likely to have revolts if you appease the people somewhat; outright tyranny never last for long.

damnit, id like to file a complaint for false advertisement

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Imagine that you're a great and powerful King (or Queen) and you have a vast and skillful military. You've enter many battles and your generals are notorious great warriors. Let's just cut to the chase....

...You can kick major ass!

Well, so happens that there are neighbor lands which remain neutral. It's open for anyone to claim. What would you choose?

Colonization or Conquer?

As usual I reserve my own opinion. But for this one.....I'd say Conquer! The rule of the mighty is greater than the rule of the equal.

Is there really a difference? Either way, they have to pay taxes to you.

Originally posted by Robtard
Take the Roman approach, give them the option of submitting, while allowing them to keep their religions, customs and local laws in place, as long as they accept my law(s) and ruler-ship above all else if/when the two conflict. If they refuse, conquer, then rebuild and do the above. Less likely to have revolts if you appease the people somewhat; outright tyranny never last for long.

Same, except they'd have to learn my language.

There is more to war and expansion than a powerful army. In many cases the loss of life might be greater than the need for land, and could make you unpopular, or whatever. What are the politics involved?

And the two choices ultimately cause the same thing. Colonization of another country will cause war just the same. If you were bent on taking the land, you should use supreme military force.

Well in that time period I'd suppose I would hope to negotiate it with the people living there giving them a choice. I'd explain the facts that a neighboring Kingdom could be cruel to them. If my strategists were foreseeing my Kingdom threatened, then, and if it wasn't agreed too, I'd be forced to conquerer it only because if another more evil/hostile kingdom got hold of it, they'd be too close for comfort and threaten my Kingdom. I do have to say that I would be a diplomatic and just Queen. I'd even name a holiday after me. Hmm, I suppose Friday would be great! TGIF.

Long Live Queen Debbiejo!

*And the people cheered*

clapclapclap

Of course I'd send in my propagandists...lol

Stir up mistrust and dislike of a more powerful neighbouring state, convince that war between the two is necessary. Offer salvation to the beleaguered lesser nation in exchange for military access and control over martial law. Conspire to shake up said nation's government ruling body, offer yourself up as a reluctant leader in a time of crisis. Declare every second Friday, Casual Dress Day.

colonize for better trade with that neighboring state and have the military secure trade.and seeing as my generals are neither dead nor dieing i would hide weapons caches and hidden barracks in this neutral state then slow trade by withdrawing my military force and surplussing resources and train men once there trade and economy are at there worst point and then............cheese it !!

I'm too nice to conquer. Unless the people I ruled over were all just idiots.

I would incite rebellion and mistrust, as any good superpower would. Make allies with the government of the coup, and then secretly betray them, slowly eliminating their elite secretly, whilst the common folk beleive their allies are simply taking a tour of the country.

Saves money AND lives.

Squash them like bugs show them who is in charge and execute all those that try to stop me. Make the rest so scared that they will surrender. Makes you go down in the history books as a far more known person then people who use politics

Hmm, well first I'll reinstitute public executions. That should be a good deterrent. Oh and the stockades. Everyone needs their sex life spiced up a bit....

MMMMmmmmmmmm.......Slavery of the weak.

Dont you need to conquer an already inhabited land in order to colonize it?

Wild life: Stupid people, they don't know what they are missing.

People: Stupid animals, they don't know what they are missing...

Which is correct.

I'd have to choose colonization.

I'd make friends. It works, ya know...

Neither of both. Just because you are in a position of power, doesn' t mean you actually should take such actions.

Colonize, get as many countries on your side as you can.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
As usual I reserve my own opinion.



Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I'd say Conquer! The rule of the mighty is greater than the rule of the equal.



What would i do without you, wrathfuldwarf?

Originally posted by Cornlady
Colonize, get as many countries on your side as you can.

Exactly. Any conqueror is relatively temporary because conquering is an act that creates enemies while colonization creates friends. Look at Rome...they did both, but their ability to conquer exceeded their ability to colonize, so they couldn't feed the Goths when the Goths surrendered, and ZAMO!!! One generation later the city of Rome falls.

I would move in to the neutral lands.Make peace with them knowing that my army is the best and they would be scared of me.I would then send all my food and liquor to the neutral lands and party with them .Tell them to join my army train with my men .Ask them to bring there women to my land .They should agree to all of that as they know my army is the best and are trained to kill like ninjas.

I would colonize.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
Dont you need to conquer an already inhabited land in order to colonize it?

Yeah, pretty much. You could say conquer by neocolonialism or colonialism.

Honestly, I would choose to conquer.

Being feared is being better than being loved. Histories greatest betrayals have been committed by loved ones.

If you instill fear, as a dictator or leader you'd have everyone under control and the chances of betrayal are lower cause of fear. Sure you'll be hated but so what. Being is sometimes better than being liked.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Being feared is being better than being loved. Histories greatest betrayals have been committed by loved ones.

Well that's what betrayal is, you can't be betrayed by someone who never had your trust.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Being feared is being better than being loved.

You should read more Orwell and less Machiavelli.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
If you instill fear, as a dictator or leader you'd have everyone under control and the chances of betrayal are lower cause of fear. Sure you'll be hated but so what. Being is sometimes better than being liked.

Lovers don't plot revolution if they really love you. People cowering in terror tend to get pissed off and try a coup the moment they have a chance and a leader.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Sure you'll be hated but so what.

So next time you come across a threat that momentarily holds your attention the entire foundation of your power comes to life against you, seizing that moment to destroy the tyrant.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Well that's what betrayal is, you can't be betrayed by someone who never had your trust.

Those you think unloyal, say professionally, can be betrayers to if they're apart of your association.

A CEO could mistrust his secretary yet still wanna keep her around because he hasn't any proof, just instinct. just something about her. But because he's a practical person that goes but fact rather than feeling he does nothing, as he should or risk having a lawsuit of somekind hit him. Later on, the next thing you know the sec. whistleblows and betrays him.

So you can be betrayed by someone who you never had trust in that close to you.



The perfect book to read is called the 42 laws of power.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Lovers don't plot revolution if they really love you. People cowering in terror tend to get pissed off and try a coup the moment they have a chance and a leader.

Not true. All of Cleopatra's sisters were locked up and later beheaded per orders of Cleo's eldest sister, then the queen of Egypt. They grew up closer than anyone and had the utmost love for eachother and were imprisoned cause of a potential revolution and coup that was rumored and bound to happen.

People cowering in terror get pissed of and do nothing about it for fear of being singled out and sought out, resulting in facing the dictator or the systems wrath.

A public display of force would keep subordinates in line. I'm for the death penalty. To bad we don't have it in my state.

Understand that i wouldn't be a heartless guy. I just don't like abuse. I'd have pride in my land and people. It's just whomever would defy laws i'd set should be punished publicly as an example. We do that here don't we?

A great leader must not tolerate insubordination, not even in the least now matter what the cost. Even if it costs him his most loyal and humble servant/adviser. Ridding mistakes in an administration, a bureaucracy, a kingdom or an empire i think, has given long reigns to leaders.

Originally posted by Quark_666
So next time you come across a threat that momentarily holds your attention the entire foundation of your power comes to life against you, seizing that moment to destroy the tyrant.

I'm the type to think 3 steps ahead.(which is why i'm so good at chess)

I'd have spy everywhere all the time, normal people and some already working for me, who'd receive an extra stipend whom have to report to me every other day with attention worth news of what's going on. And i'd have spies watching them, too. They'd report to me daily. I'd be that intricate as a leader.

I would have info on a revolution or coup before it hit, i'd botch the attack and detain all the conspirators, kill any resisters, rally loyalists and the undecided and show them the how our captors are the real enemies of what we all believe in, via a passionate speech.

If i were in a sovereign nation like an islamic nation, i'd order a simultaneous hanging of the chief conspirators in front of everyone to instill fear and respect mainly into anyone think of a coup in the future. basically showing them that this is what will happen to you if you try to betray the land and it's people. I'm not kidding. In the states I would order a death sentence via gas chamber via video that would air on tv.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I'm the type to think 3 steps ahead.(which is why i'm so good at chess)

I'd have spy everywhere all the time, normal people and some already working for me, who'd receive an extra stipend whom have to report to me every other day with attention worth news of what's going on. And i'd have spies watching them, too. They'd report to me daily. I'd be that intricate as a leader.

I would have info on a revolution or coup before it hit, i'd botch the attack and detain all the conspirators, kill any resisters, rally loyalists and the undecided and show them the how our captors are the real enemies of what we all believe in, via a passionate speech.

If i were in a sovereign nation like an islamic nation, i'd order a simultaneous hanging of the chief conspirators in front of everyone to instill fear and respect mainly into anyone think of a coup in the future. basically showing them that this is what will happen to you if you try to betray the land and it's people. I'm not kidding. In the states I would order a death sentence via gas chamber via video that would air on tv.

I'll take a moment to pray that you are never in charge.

I'm a bit of a chess player myself. Let me show you the view 6 moves ahead.

Stopping people from thinking, talking, rebelling and being ordinary people is a tough challenge. Obviously, if you have enough power you could pull it off...but that type of treatment would not allow your people to support your economy forever. Eventually you'd get weak. You'd be making the same mistake as the soviet union ten times over. The concept I'm talking about is, making enemies in all directions is bound to lead to distruction because you have to pull support from somewhere.

Besides, if you had the same luck with colonization your chances would be far stabler.

"Without law and order our nation cannot survive."

Adolf Hitler

I know the idea has come up, by why not ask the aboriginal peoples what the differences between colonization and conquest are?

Originally posted by inimalist
I know the idea has come up, by why not ask the aboriginal peoples what the differences between colonization and conquest are?

Cause we killed 'em?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Cause we killed 'em?

in short yes

more the idea that colonization is a form of conquest over any previous inhabitants of the land. Colonizing the moon might not be conquest, colonizing land owned by someone else, certainly conquest.

A lot of the "colonialism" with regards to Africa, India, or the Americas was basically just military conquest (although the dutch in America may be a salient proof against this rule)

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I'm the type to think 3 steps ahead.(which is why i'm so good at chess)

I'd have spy everywhere all the time, normal people and some already working for me, who'd receive an extra stipend whom have to report to me every other day with attention worth news of what's going on. And i'd have spies watching them, too. They'd report to me daily. I'd be that intricate as a leader.

I would have info on a revolution or coup before it hit, i'd botch the attack and detain all the conspirators, kill any resisters, rally loyalists and the undecided and show them the how our captors are the real enemies of what we all believe in, via a passionate speech.

If i were in a sovereign nation like an islamic nation, i'd order a simultaneous hanging of the chief conspirators in front of everyone to instill fear and respect mainly into anyone think of a coup in the future. basically showing them that this is what will happen to you if you try to betray the land and it's people. I'm not kidding. In the states I would order a death sentence via gas chamber via video that would air on tv.

yes, despotic regimes have, statistically, less revolution and civil unrest.

oh wait, or did I miss the fact that totalitarian governments hold onto power tooth and nail against opponents and cannot depend on their own citizens to support the government?

http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/abombs.html

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
"Without law and order our nation cannot survive."

Adolf Hitler

Without good foreign relations law and order cannot survive.

Ask Hitler. He lost because of his foreign relations. So did France, Spain, Rome...

Originally posted by Quark_666
Without good foreign relations law and order cannot survive.

Ask Hitler. He lost because of his foreign relations. So did France, Spain, Rome...

Hitler didnt lose beacuse of foreign relations.hitler lost because he got carryed away with is power.the reason why hitler lost the war in europe was because of is tactics.

Originally posted by High Priest
Hitler didnt lose beacuse of foreign relations.hitler lost because he got carryed away with is power.the reason why hitler lost the war in europe was because of is tactics.

Yes, he got carried away with his power. Which IS the entire idea behind "conquer". It's pretty much the definition.

And better tactics wouldn't have saved Hitler. Maybe better strategy...MAYBE, but his tactics were as good as they came.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Yes, he got carried away with his power. Which IS the entire idea behind "conquer". It's pretty much the definition.

And better tactics wouldn't have saved Hitler. Maybe better strategy...MAYBE, but his tactics were as good as they came.


Why better strategy. Hitler lost because of is tactics with britain and russia .A strategy is a long term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal, most often "winning". Strategy is differentiated from tactics or immediate actions with resources at hand by its nature of being extensively premeditated, and often practically rehearsed. Strategies are used to make the problem or problems easier to understand and solve.

Originally posted by High Priest
Hitler didnt lose beacuse of foreign relations.hitler lost because he got carryed away with is power.the reason why hitler lost the war in europe was because of is tactics.

Hitler wasn't a tactician. He was (poor) strategist. And if anything he lost cause of poor strategy. (and overconfidence, partly).

ummm

Hitler was both a phenomenal tactician and strategist

He wasn't a general. But outside of military decisions, he was a master planner and operator.

Originally posted by inimalist
ummm

Hitler was both a phenomenal tactician and strategist

He wasn't a general. But outside of military decisions, he was a master planner and operator.


I agree he was a master planner and operator.But the reason why hitler failed was down to tactics.Military tactics the art of organizing an army are the techniques for using weapons or military units in combination for engaging and defeating an enemy in battle. Changes in philosophy and technology over time have been reflected in changes to military tactics.

Up until the nineteenth century, many military tactics were confined to battlefield concerns, such as how to best maneuver units during combat in open terrain. In current military thought, tactics are the lowest level of planning, involving small units ranging from a few dozen to a few hundred men.Wich is why hitler failed he sent is men to britain and the rest to russia that was hitler tactial mistake.

Originally posted by High Priest
I agree he was a master planner and operator.But the reason why hitler failed was down to tactics.Military tactics the art of organizing an army are the techniques for using weapons or military units in combination for engaging and defeating an enemy in battle. Changes in philosophy and technology over time have been reflected in changes to military tactics.

Up until the nineteenth century, many military tactics were confined to battlefield concerns, such as how to best maneuver units during combat in open terrain. In current military thought, tactics are the lowest level of planning, involving small units ranging from a few dozen to a few hundred men.Wich is why hitler failed he sent is men to britain and the rest to russia that was hitler tactial mistake.

That sounds like a strategic mistake. Tactics are limited to the battlefield. What makes you think that the ruler of a nation can make the slightest difference in tactics? But Hitler had excellent officers who utilized efficient tactics, so his loss had nothing to do with tactics.

Anyway, my original argument was on topic. It was a mistake for Hitler to bite off more than he could chew.

I tend to agree more with Quark about tactics v. strategy, even though it seems to be more of an issue of definition.

There is even an argument for Hitler attacking Russia. Had the slash and burn strategy not been so effective, and had Hitler focused on taking Moscow as opposed to the many smaller cities along the way, he could have very easily taken the capital before the winter gave the Russians a tactical advantage.

I don't know... He could have fought Russia and Britain if he had selected his targets properly, and if the Japanese hadn't involved the Americans.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Yes, he was overconfident. You've proved that quite well. Does it somehow support your belief that he would have won if his tactics were better? Remember, we're talking about whether conquest or colonization is more effective. This whole thing about hitler seems to support colonization...you yourself illustrated how unforgiving it is to make a few mistakes in a war.

Colonization rules thats the answer.

Originally posted by High Priest
Colonization rules thats the answer.


Conquest does it more effectively, though. And more efficiently, as well.

Has American economic colonization done more to spread the American culture or has American military imperialism?

Originally posted by inimalist
Has American economic colonization done more to spread the American culture or has American military imperialism?

I say that American militarism has been the greater contributor to the spread of American culture, as unlikely as it seems.

There're a few reasons, one reason, is that conquest of the Americas and what is now the U.S., made way for colonization, which then gradually thrived, along with all its other aspects, like culture, with time and momentum influencing its growth.

And as an aside, the American soldier in my top five slot of symbols representing the U.S. The American soldier is a culture icon in and of itself.

To get back, in other words, if it weren't for conquest, there'd be no colonization. And without at least an organized colony, a culture fabric wouldn't even exist for it to be significantly spread out in the first place.

China

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Conquest does it more effectively, though. And more efficiently, as well.

More efficient and effective? Where a country takes money and soldiers away from its people to deplete the resources of another country so it can finally take the depleted spoils?

I don't see why.

Originally posted by High Priest
I agree he was a master planner and operator.But the reason why hitler failed was down to tactics.Military tactics the art of organizing an army are the techniques for using weapons or military units in combination for engaging and defeating an enemy in battle. Changes in philosophy and technology over time have been reflected in changes to military tactics.

Up until the nineteenth century, many military tactics were confined to battlefield concerns, such as how to best maneuver units during combat in open terrain. In current military thought, tactics are the lowest level of planning, involving small units ranging from a few dozen to a few hundred men.Wich is why hitler failed he sent is men to britain and the rest to russia that was hitler tactial mistake.

I agree but I don't. By this time in history, wars are won strictly on arms. Strategy and tactics don't mean shit to tanks or machine guns.

Originally posted by chithappens
I agree but I don't. By this time in history, wars are won strictly on arms. Strategy and tactics don't mean shit to tanks or machine guns.



I dont know Stalingrad.????

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I say that American militarism has been the greater contributor to the spread of American culture, as unlikely as it seems.

There're a few reasons, one reason, is that conquest of the Americas and what is now the U.S., made way for colonization, which then gradually thrived, along with all its other aspects, like culture, with time and momentum influencing its growth.

And as an aside, the American soldier in my top five slot of symbols representing the U.S. The American soldier is a culture icon in and of itself.

To get back, in other words, if it weren't for conquest, there'd be no colonization. And without at least an organized colony, a culture fabric wouldn't even exist for it to be significantly spread out in the first place.

And you are putting America as the best example why? Just cause we've been a notable world power for a century? Every nation has had their moment of glory in the past.

Originally posted by Storm
Neither of both. Just because you are in a position of power, doesn' t mean you actually should take such actions.

So practically you either undecided or just can't make a decision. People in power are pressure to take action. You can't please everyone. You make the final call. That is why people choose you to be in power. That's how it works.

Originally posted by Quark_666
And you are putting America as the best example why? Just cause we've been a notable world power for a century? Every nation has had their moment of glory in the past.

Um. Cause he asked me about American militarism?

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Um. Cause he asked me about American militarism?

And colonization.

And you said much of what we think of as colonization is actually militarism, which I wholeheartedly agree with. But why was militarism more effective than colonization?

Originally posted by Quark_666
And colonization.

And you said much of what we think of as colonization is actually militarism, which I wholeheartedly agree with. But why was militarism more effective than colonization?

1st off, colonized lands were/are conquered lands.

But why was militarism more effective? There are many reasons; ill give you one. Cause it can ultimately and forcefully instill the laws of the land colonizers would need in order to operate and progress effectively within a society. Militarism would also create thing like a solid societal structure such as discipline which would most likely be a top core value out of many, everyone would be encouraged to practice.

Colonization is nothing with w/out a good solid base and a stable and organized structure. Otherwise you'd either have a rouge "cut off from the world" society or an unrecognizable sovereign with no allies which will make you prey to powerful more aggressive neighbors with allies and more resources and with an eye on expansion.

A stand alone colony is a sitting duck waiting for inevitable extinction or for it to be conquered.

conquer. ill hang the balls of those i conquer on pikes, to scare the living shit out of my enemies(pikes ALWAYS work)

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
1st off, colonized lands were/are conquered lands.

But why was militarism more effective? There are many reasons; ill give you one. Cause it can ultimately and forcefully instill the laws of the land colonizers would need in order to operate and progress effectively within a society. Militarism would also create thing like a solid societal structure such as discipline which would most likely be a top core value out of many, everyone would be encouraged to practice.

Colonization is nothing with w/out a good solid base and a stable and organized structure. Otherwise you'd either have a rouge "cut off from the world" society or an unrecognizable sovereign with no allies which will make you prey to powerful more aggressive neighbors with allies and more resources and with an eye on expansion.

A stand alone colony is a sitting duck waiting for inevitable extinction or for it to be conquered.

Looks like we're off subject. It's now an argument between conquest and economics. But the discussion is better now anyway.

Who said anything about forfeiting military strength to colonize? Conquest isn't the only way to maintain military strength. If anything, conquest depletes the strength of the military unless it has positive side effects financially. It all comes down to money. The only way to get a powerful military is to get rich. You can get rich by conquering and rendering nations to waste, which temporarily makes you rich. But once you've ransacked your money source, the spoils stop coming.

If you gain power, gain power politically and economically. That way your sources are happy to give you strength because it strengthens them, they can keep strengthening you for the next five centuries, and you don't really have any enemies.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Imagine that you're a great and powerful King (or Queen) and you have a vast and skillful military. You've enter many battles and your generals are notorious great warriors. Let's just cut to the chase....

...You can kick major ass!

Well, so happens that there are neighbor lands which remain neutral. It's open for anyone to claim. What would you choose?

Colonization or Conquer?

As usual I reserve my own opinion. But for this one.....I'd say Conquer! The rule of the mighty is greater than the rule of the equal. Colonise. We could get more mighty!

Originally posted by lord xyz
Colonise. We could get more mighty!

We agree for once.

I always thought colonies were areas of conquered lands. I guess we're pretending that after taking these countries, we wouldn't absorb the country.

Colonize. If something bad goes wrong, I won't have to take the complete blame. Also, I think there's less chance of rebellion if you colonize.

Originally posted by Council#13

Colonize. If something bad goes wrong, I won't have to take the complete blame. Also, I think there's less chance of rebellion if you colonize.

This depends completely on how you handle it. Machevellian principles take this issue away mostly if incorporated correctly. Western powers have proven this in the past few centuries.

Machiavelli said that it was 'better to be feared than loved' so he would say conquer.
However, Sun Tzu said that 'Ulitimate excellence lies not in winning every battle but in defeating the enemy without ever fighting'
So I'm undecided.
Conquering is more fun though....

Originally posted by Quark_666
We agree for once. You must have had to swallow your pride to say that. Cool.

Originally posted by Darth Exodus
Machiavelli said that it was 'better to be feared than loved' so he would say conquer.
However, Sun Tzu said that 'Ulitimate excellence lies not in winning every battle but in defeating the enemy without ever fighting'
So I'm undecided.
Conquering is more fun though....

If you base all of your conclusions off of quotes from other people, you are gonna have to believe everything.

Originally posted by lord xyz
You must have had to swallow your pride to say that. Cool.

I thought you'd be touched.

Originally posted by Quark_666
If you base all of your conclusions off of quotes from other people, you are gonna have to believe everything.



I thought you'd be touched. Not touched, surprised.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Not touched, surprised.

Wow. Have I honestly been kicking your butt that badly?

Originally posted by Quark_666
Wow. Have I honestly been kicking your butt that badly? You have a very warped view. I suggest you try to fix that.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Imagine that you're a great and powerful King (or Queen) and you have a vast and skillful military. You've enter many battles and your generals are notorious great warriors. Let's just cut to the chase....

...You can kick major ass!

Well, so happens that there are neighbor lands which remain neutral. It's open for anyone to claim. What would you choose?

Colonization or Conquer?

As usual I reserve my own opinion. But for this one.....I'd say Conquer! The rule of the mighty is greater than the rule of the equal. I guess whatever is more appropriate in a particular instance.

Originally posted by lord xyz
You have a very warped view. I suggest you try to fix that. You are an unusually serious XYZ.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I guess whatever is more appropriate in a particular instance. Someday if I grow up I hope I'll be able to compromise like that. As for the here and now, I have too much fun disagreeing with people.

Originally posted by Quark_666
You are an unusually serious XYZ. What's an XYZ?

Originally posted by lord xyz
What's an XYZ? OMG you just made me laugh my guts out...probably just because it's 2:00 in the morning but still

Just substitute XYZ for your name, okay?

"I am unusually serious", okay I got that. Yeah, I'm a very unusual guy, that's probably why people keep me around...and why others don't.

Originally posted by lord xyz
"I am unusually serious", okay I got that. Yeah, I'm a very unusual guy, that's probably why people keep me around...and why others don't. I haven't decided which category I would be in.

Originally posted by Quark_666
I haven't decided which category I would be in.

Don't be afraid to choose sides. 313

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Don't be afraid to choose sides. 313 I AM afraid to pick sides. I'll tell him he's all right and suddenly he will get obnoxious...at least if he's like my little brother.