[Pan_Yans Wife]

My husband mentioned something along those lines.

He said that the world will always be ruled by military power. Those who have the most guns, rule the world.

The question is, do you rule the world for the side of good, and improve the world?

Or do you rule for the side of evil, and try to destroy the world?

[DennisR]

All I can say is, "I am glad there is only one superpower, and it is us!"

[thoughtomator]

My answer would be that we would rule only so far as to ensure reasonable security for ourselves. Nations without guns end up like Tibet.

[Eala]

My husband mentioned something along those lines.
He said that the world will always be ruled by military power. Those who have the most guns, rule the world.
The question is, do you rule the world for the side of good, and improve the world?
Or do you rule for the side of evil, and try to destroy the world?

Sadly, I think the question is more complex than that. How do you, assuming you've gone for the "side of good" (and we won't dig into that), ensure the continuity of your rule for the "side of good"? How do you keep the Bill, or for that matter Hillary, Clintons from taking over?

Perhaps the problem is in the word "rule." A policeman doesn't "rule" his beat, but he can work to maintain civil order in it. If we're careful to make that distinction, we can tell when a President Clinton is crossing the line.