is America the new Rman Empire?
 

Yes.

The article is a turd.

(I win this debate, by posting the most eloquent opinion about it so far.)

Wrong, UT. Nothing can top the original post.

The stylishly casual title, misspelling left intact, as to fully communicate the sense of glib superiority Phil has coursing through his veins as he reaches towards the keyboard and slams home his coup de grâce: a bone-crushing <Ctrl+V> combination! >>>>>>> The crowd goes wild!

Oh, darn. I thought America was finally making strides in the quest to forcibly provide everyone with database recovery management solutions. RMAN

Toga! Toga! Toga!

I didn't actually read the article :P I have however, on numerous occassions suggested that America is the new Rome. Inasmuch as it represents a cultural centre for much of the world, is looked to for security, is the most powerful nation and greatly envied. It is the new great Empire.

We are not the New Rome. We are Better than Rome.

We are Americans.

We have the best possible bread, and most amazing circuses.

We're different from Rome, because we're gonna stay on top of the world forever!

But it must be said that the best possible bread is usually something of Italian origin, and the most amazing circuses are Quebec's Cirque du Soleil.

America will eventually fall to the status of Britian or France today.

As wolf says, better. We grow better weeds in our fields (Kentucky's #1 cash crop is...). We have better pasta. Our sauce comes from Jersey tomatoes that Rome never had. Our leaders even spell out how we have a better potatoe. We grow bread that tastes so much better ... contains 50% sugar. We don't need roads that lead to Rome. Tainted money gets to Washington electronically. We never needed Brutus. As Jay Leno so appreciated, we have Monica. And what good empire has a coliseum only in its capital? Our gladiators fight every Sunday in cities all over the Empire; returning every week to confront attacking Lions, Eagles, and Seahawks. When America is dumb, it does not just make useless war with the Huns. It finds a whole axis of evil. Of course Romans also denied it. Rome was overrun by massive illegal immigration and invasions from the Gauls. Meanwhile, when we lose those wars, we don't lose whole legions. We just end up with thousands of disabled. That too is better.

In the empire, when someone learned of a good idea, he would smack himself in the head and say, “Why do I not think of that”. In America, we sit in a boat in the Mississippi River and let the fish do the smacking. During the Roman empire, one could be attacked by Wolves. Today, we only worry about Wolfovitz.

Of course, in Rome, spies were everywhere. America has simply taken it to new heights and extremes - satellites and routine wiretapping without judicial review. But like in Rome, eventually, the government cannot trust the people. New patriot acts make America safer. Rome never had such powers.

In Rome, if you were suspected, then the emperor would have you smitten. Today we have all those electronics devices so that courts can kill with certainty. We kill off just as many innocent people. But that’s OK. It’s done legally with a death penalty.

Every new empire eventually must invent its own religion. Rome created Christianity. America has Intelligent Design, Church of the Latter Day Saints, and Kwanza complete with disciples and philosophers such as Jimmy Swagert, Rush Limbaugh, and Pat Robertson.

Eventually the Empire broke up into Red states (Rome) and Blue states (Constantinople).

Oh yes. And we have Santa Claus. Ceasar did not.

And whom, may I ask, do you think will be the "New Lead Nation?"

That depends on when we do fall to that status.

If we fall in the next 50 years (very unlikely but it is a possiblity) then China may take over if they can pull themselves together or the EU might be able to take charge. Or both. Realistically, the US and one or both of those two countries would share superpower status for a good amount of time before one breaks down.

If happens after 2050 then I have no idea because countries change power very quickly. Sooner or later America will fall to the status of Britian or France, it probably won't happen in the next century but it will happen eventually.

Round of applause TW, I like.

picking up on typos is very, very mature.

See we are better.

Keep a close watch on your grammar, too. You won't know what hit you.

See, what you did wrong there was not capitalizing the beginning of the sentence. That's 50 lashes with a wet noodle.

i cant be arsed. and i like being lashed with wet noodles.

Then, we have many things to talk about, comrade!

Seriously, if America is the New Roma, which way to the baths?


:D

[b]F[b]rom Bush Square, go past the Bush memorial statue (the one where he holds the world above his head) turn right onto Bush Drive, past the other Bush memorial statue (the one where he holds an AK47 in the shape of a crucifix), and if you can get past the guards, the Baths are easily visible by the Bush memorial statue which dominates the Baths from atop : the one where he holds Brittania's head to his dick. ;)

I'm sure there will be a major change in nation status in the next 50 to 100 years. Countries may merge together or we'll be divided only by continents - I think the world will be so different in 50 yrs due to technological advances and whatnot.

Then again :alien: may come and visit us, or we may have outposts elsewhere in the universe. :vader1:

I would really like to the see the EU unite in all aspects. They would have to create a new language and that would be the easiest problem but it would be symbolic nevertheless. Other than that I am not currently aware of any other countries that have potential to unite, but there could be some.

Oh, dear. you're a Cowboys fan?

That would be way too fitting!

You see. The Romans did not even have Cowboys in their Coliseum. Romans will never be as good as us.

From this list of reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire
Now substitute Illegal Aliens for Slaves. :eyebrow:

And still, you have to pay them. Or else word gets around and you don't get anybody looking for work. I'd say calling them "slaves" is stretching the term unconscionably. Remember that "unfair treatment" differs considerably in definition from "slavery," for slavery is a mere subset.

Now the big thing that keeps us from being a new Empire is our country's fundamentally anti-imperial mindset. We remain in that habit, and have a certain, inchoate understanding that imperial conquest does not serve our trade interests, which we set first in priority -- fundamentally, it's that wealthy trade partners, not being tapped for tribute nor constrained in their own markets and trade, trade more, and the enrichment becomes mutual.

Capitalism, basically, is what keeps us non-imperial. The logic of empire was based on a mercantilistic economic model, which we rejected in the 1770s and -80s for good and all, having been on the short end of that stick.

UG, for someone so apparently well educated, you seem to have very little grasp on what it means to be an imperial nation.

Capitalism certainly does not save you from that.

UG is well traveled. He knows a gallon of gas is larger in an imperial nation.

*phweeeet* Flag on the play. That's three very humorous posts from tw in one thread.

:eek:

Dude, I saw Delirium and it was the most pretentious bunch of crap I've ever seen. I'm no cultural idiot, I wasn't expecting bears on tricycles...but for God's sake. I just wanted it to stop, especially that guy whose role it must have been to walk around the stage slowly looking amazed and scared the entire time. Puh!

:)

Or the vomitoriums.

You must have seen one of the "B" Circques. Go to Vegas next time :)

In one thread???? Three. tw funny - I'm lovin it. It must be a new years resolution! :D

My mom had seen previous Cirques, and loved them, hated this one...I think it was the Delirium show itself.

Of course, I am willing to keep an open mind if you'd like to send me to Vegas (baby)! ;)

Here you miss the point quite completely. Whether they're actually slaves or not isn't relevant- the point was the use of extremely low-cost labor on huge farms which destroys small business.

Because of economies of scale, capitalism constantly pulls towards monopoly, and should be managed.

Thank you, HM. Yes, I said "Now substitute Illegal Aliens for Slaves", I didn't say substitute the words. :thumbsup:

tw's being funny all over the place today - I'm loving it

Just Notre Dame getting beat by LSU - a New Orleans team doing a job. Puts a whole new perspective on religion. The victims fight back.

Out-freakin-standing

Aliantha, I know enough to know that empires are obsolete. I find the use of "imperial" in this context to be intellectually dishonest and altogether straining the definition of the word.

What I am doing is contending that the "imperial"-users are bullshitting, and bullshitting in a manner over-reminiscent of the Soviet Union and Red China, both of whom threw the term around in the usual lying totalitarian way.

Define imperial.

This is the problem with imperial thought. The ones employing it will always argue that they're not being imperial in their thoughts (and actions).

What do you think the British empire told the people when they were invading other nations? That they were 'civilising' them. Bringing God into their lives. Educating them. The list is long.

Don't display your ignorance UG.

The term may be, but the concept and practice is alive and well.

Unless you're counting Han Chinese policy of annexing buffer states around the Han center of China -- to make up mainland China -- I can't think of a single surviving example. The Soviet Union was the other one, and look what a fistful of states are there now.

What is the foundation of our dominance? It's entirely that we are good at trade, mutually beneficial transaction, large scale or small. That's the only thing we've ever done with consistency or persistence. Unlike Charlemagne, we regard warfare as an aberrant crisis and not the regular state of affairs.

I would laugh if I actually thought you believed that.

That's a compliment, by the way.

Keep on living in your delusions UG. I'm not even going to bother arguing this one with you considering the fact that it's obvious the actions of the US have been empirical.

EG: HAWAII; ALASKA; HALF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS. (just to name a few)

And lets not forget the failures! ie the countries the US tried to 'settle' with little or no success.

If these types of actions are not empire building then I'd like to know what they are.

So, rather than trying to suggest that the actions of the US have not been empirical, try telling me what you think has changed so that you can support the fact that perhaps the US is no longer empirical.

Urbane.....how many countries and islands, has America built military bases on?

Whoa, there. We bought Alaska from the Russians. Seward's folly, it was called.
As for Hawaii, the people living there requested the US to take charge. They, missionaries, sailors, fortune hunters, fishermen, planters, from everywhere, had already greatly out numbered and displaced the natives.;)

So, when do we get to feed Pat Robertson to a puma? Huh? Huh?

As for Hawaii, the people living there requested the US to take charge. They, missionaries, sailors, fortune hunters, fishermen, planters, from everywhere, had already greatly out numbered and displaced the natives.

Ask the 'natives' now and they'll tell you they'd like their islands back.

We bought Alaska from the Russians

Did anyone bother asking the Inuit tribes how they felt about this transaction?

Spain wants Central America back. Russia wants eastern Europe back. Japan wants Chins back. I want my youth back. So what, I'd expect them to say that.
The Hawaiian "natives", who were émigrés also, were a bunch of constantly warring tribes. When Kamehameha finally kicked ass, with outside help, and created his kingdom, he delayed any political system developing. And by the time the monarchy ended there were more non-natives than natives, from the four corners of the earth. You'd be hard pressed to define, let alone locate a Hawaiian native.

Anyway, a few planter families had the islands by the short hairs and the majority of the people living there wanted the US to annex the islands and stop the abuse of the majority by the minority. It worked, giving full citizenship rights to the children of the original immigrant laborers that were being oppressed by the planters.:us:

Why, they didn't own it, unlike the Aborigines. :p

We are definitely imperial...
You think it is coincidence that we invaded a nation that was NO THREAT to us IN ANY WAY AT ALL a few years after they discovered they had the world's largest land-locked untapped oil reserve?
Ummmm.... no.
It is an invasion and occupation, nothing else.

The indigenous tribes of Australia have never claimed to own it. They are part of the land and consider themselves to be an integral part of the natural law.

Much the same as the Inuit I believe you will find.

Under that reasoning, if you've bought the land, you've bought the people also.

Slavery?

I wonder where the planters came from? I'm sure they would have benefited from an army coming in to protect them from the 'restless natives' huh?

Who benefits from the US entering these areas? What does the US do with these islands it 'anexes'?

Put lots of big guns on them mostly. Why? To protect themselves from the 'yellow hoard'!