Whats the Issue with Conquering?

The Almeides
The Mongols
The Romans
The Guals
The Germans
The English
The Greek
Modern USA

To name a few nations off the top of my head who have/are made/making attempts at conquering large areas or the globe.

I just don't get what's wrong with it. If one country or nation can rise up above the rest and lay them all out flat, and make the world one of flowing gold for their own people (possibly but not always at the expense of others), why say nay?

For Example; The War in Iraq.

Many many many stand by the idea that the War in Iraq is unethical, wrong, etc. This is primarily due to the fact that the U.S./NATO wants the oil and resources to themselves, but what makes this wrong? If a single nation can do it, then they deserve to, otherwise it would be 'wrong' for them to have wasted so much men/time/equipment.

There is also a buttload of violence going on, but it did not start when the West intervened, it was already going on. Imagine 2 punks fistfighting and a cop comes along and pepper-sprays and arrests them both. Who is in the right? Exactly.

If America (Or ANY OTHER nation, I don't want to start a patriotism-war) can dominate a country, continent, or the globe, and through it and the suffering of the few, can benifit the many, what is wrong with that?

 

Poverty, disease, hunger, prejudice, inequality. What is with all this conquering?

 

So just to be clear if me and 10 of my 'allys' were to come take control of your house with the use of cyanide and automatic weapons, with the intentions of creating more civilized neighborhood under my control. Your cool with that?

 

why are they conquering in the first place? its destructive and unnecessary. nations shouldn't exist at all.

 

For record, Iraqi oil is nationalized and they receive all money from it, the only profits any company could make is being paid to develop said wells, which they could do in a million other places in the world too.

But conquering is pretty immoral. Is it right in 100 years if China conquers us? Was it right for Hitler to conquer Europe? Should I be allowed to conquer you if I have more guns?

 

Are you Cool with That? - by no means. However, if it does better the entire community, then who I am I to say it is wrong? Of course i'd fight back, but that's because my own instinct says that I am threatened, not because of logical conclusion that I don't want to the neighbourhood to change.

 

well to answer your question whats wrong with it, people.
People are greedy and put their own interest before the interest of the greater good. Just like you said you would do If i tried to conquer your house.
If I were to be successful in conquering and controlling your neighborhood then the peace and sanctity of said neighborhood is in my hands.

Perhaps if i were a robot modeled after Gandhi maybe I could be successful in maintaining this harmony forever. But I'm not, I am human and sooner or later would make a mistake. You can not trust people to control other people fairly. When you are the puppet master you see yourself as more valuable than the puppet. When you have groups of people at your disposal power can corrupt the mind. When you no longer have free will you cease to be human.

 

Because the conqerors rarely take good care of the conquered.

 

But if the conquered are say, 30% of the population, and the conquerer's original group are the other 70%, would it not generally be better for the 70% to benefit at the 30%'s expense?

 

No, not morally. You're a Canadian, Canada is weak as fuck. This gives America the right to conquer it, we buy most of your resources anyways, might as well cut out the middle man for us.

 

what are you talking about?
If a nation conquers another nation, it isn't like all those people from the conquering nation pack up their things and "move in" to the conquered place.
100% of the conquered people are conquered, what difference does it make?

 

The issue with conquering is that it cannot be avoided given the choices we make.

 

So it makes sense for American to invade Canada, in some regards. If the conquerer and his soldiers are not murderers, rapists, etc. then not much is lost except for the sense of individuality and nationalism in Canada, but America gains, and New Canada gains.

Of course, America wouldn't do this due to the opinions of the rest of the Itnt'l community.

I was just using those figures to make a point.

~~
Of course if the conquerer and/or his administration is corrupt the new nation will not be productive or profitable. However, imagine if Hitler (just as an example) had taken over the world and completely revitalized the economy in every nation and the entire world benefited.. Excellent, right?

Now, what about if he did what he did, took over the globe, and had everyone killed?

Just look at the UK before it had the U... it was taken over by warlords and peace-talks and conquered under one flag, and it was probably one of the best things ever to happen to that area.

 

No, it's not excellent because he would have to pillage and slaughter millions upon millions of people to accomplish that. The ends don't justify the means, and in this case, I'm not so sure the ends would be so desirable anyways. I can't imagine a 1 government Earth to be a good thing.

 

Because of the lack of cultural diversity, or extreme concentration of power within a select few?

The world is always getting closer to a 1-world Government.

 

and the approaching one world government is science, technology, and facts. Politics and economy is a bad game we humans play wrongly.

If you were to go in a butcher shop and order 3 pounds of beef and the owner grabs a slab that doesnt look like the right amount, are you two just going to argue back and forth until someone wins? No, we're more sophisticated now and we use scales to be fair. This needs to be applied to economy(definition being how we use our resources).
So addressing the op, it'd be like everyone that comes into that butcher shop gets way ripped off , but way worse since not everyone needs to go to a butcher shop and we're dealing with countries, vital resources, and freedom.

 

Both

 

The use of scales is so that both might profit. The butcher doesn't gain much if he spends his day arguing, and the customer isn't going to go again if they ripped off.

Of course everyone should be fair and play nice, but take a look at the world is in atm, if Russia stepped in, took over, and gave everyone his pile of resources don't you think that'd help? Or if the UK dominated and set up soup houses and controlled all rationing, wouldn't that be better?

1) What is essential about cultural diversity? Of course the natives would like to keep their traditions alive, but if they are lost.. they are lost, and the only ones who suffer are the few who remember, while many might gain from it.

2) The concentration of power is again a human flaw. It is the argument of Stalinist Communism vs. Ideal Communism. Of course there is an issue with humans, but that's a seperate debate.

 

Hey madcapsyd,

go fuck yourself...

For a weak nation, it's really odd that everytime the US and Canada has met as enemies, your country has lost. It is also funny that how for such a strong country, yours was regarded as the destroyer, and ours the saviors during wwII...

But hey, feel free to try to conquer us, just make sure you are on the front lines....