Skip? No...more like I ignore the liberal BS you spout, it is not worht me responding. But when you post things that are 100% untrue I will have to clarify.

And I really do not care for the UN...multilateralism gets us nowhere. Besides without the US the UN is worthless, and powerless. I merely brought up the fact that this was one case where the US and the UN interests were in line together. You harp about how you need UN approval all the time...in this case we did...which renders your argument of the US being in SAudi Arabia for oil 100% useless and false!

That's all. I am done on this topic of the US being in Saudi Arabia...it has already been shown in this thread that it was not about oil.

And as for your quotes...I will not argue, you found a few people that support your side. Congratulations, if we ever meet I will give you a cookie!

 

are you slow? it was proven that iraq DID have WMD which is why the no-fly zones were imposed and prince sultan air base was opened in the first place. jeez.. if you were too young to remember, at least read a history book.

 

This went off topic....lol

 

The U.S. has chosen it's wars since the fall of the USSR. You're comparing the U.S. with empires. The U.S. is not an empire. It is a free country that allows anyone in or out. And who said that we possess the world's most advanced technology?? No. We have money and influence. This globe is so interactive today that anyone we're doing business with wants the U.S. market alive.

Let's not forget freedom. FREEDOM, if not the U.S. will live a ripe old age.

BTW - folks! the end of the world in 2012?? Is your last name Orwell?

 

Disclaimer: I didn't read all the replys

Politically.... A great Empire's main downfal has always been overstretching its means. There is a point when the empire posesses enough power to be able to control and exploit other nations. Of course, as is human nature, the Empire will use this capability to its full potential, acting at first, as benefactor, then leader, then finally as hegemon. The problem is, the empire will inevitably use its far-reaching potential and piss off the nations it has muddled with. As the empire's power wanes, as it inevitably will, the resentment thats been festering in the subjugated nations will come to a front in the form of rebellion. This isn't to say the subjugated nations are faultless though. They grasp and plead for their chance at the advantage$ of cooperation will bring. They implore hand outs, and in return offer tribute, socially, politically or economically. They let themselves fall into the trap.

There are two types of hegemons. One is the "benefactor," an empire created through diplomacy and maintained through diplomacy (war, only when necessary or particularly profitable). That is what ancient Athens was. That is what the USA is.

The other type is the "pheonix." It usually follows a the slow breakdown of an entrenched system, and through timing and strategy, forms an empire militarily usually within a period of less than five years. The empire lasts only as long as its founding leader, and it soon is followed by a long-term, stable government. Examples of this are Alexander the Great, Hitler (a failed "pheonix"), and the Sui Dynasty in China.

(nice little theory, huh? I just came up with those )

Examples of the phenomena abound (I'm a historian h: ), I can list some, if you like, but youre probably more or less familar with the gist of most of them.

As for the nuclear armageddon stuff. Yeah, its bound to happen. I had this political science/int'l relations proffessor (a real, world-renowned guy) who constructed this theory, based on war data from around the world going back to around the 13th century. Calculating the number of years between what he considers "major wars" (a certain number of casualties), and "minor wars," and what would now be considered "major world conflicts" (world wars, duh), the amount of casualties, the number of factions involved, etc, He created a formula to predict the both the timing and the number of casualties of the next "major war," or what will likely be a "major world conflict." I don't remember the numbers specifically, but its pretty friking terrifying how well presented his argument is.

This phenomenon can be interpreted biologically too. Human civilization has gone through periods of stable growth, speeding up with some sort of revolution (the neolithic revolution, the 3 field system, the double-harvest of rice, the industrial revolution, the etc..) when the population rises sharply (the human population has doubled 1963-2003). This period of rapid expansion is followed by a disaster (the pleague, natural disasters, etc) which either kill off a large portion of the population, or at least bring the gowth rate down to a more stable percentage. Its a well known fact that we are allready way over the earth's capacity to support our numbers. The only difference between now and previous cycles, is the fact that we posess the technology to be our own disaster. Lovely, aint it?

 

This is a very narrow interpretation of the word "empire." I would question wether other nations have a choice in buying into our hegemony. We dominate the world's economy. In order to survive, most countries need major loans from the world bank (guess where that money comes from) or from the united states directly. If there is a freedom of choice, wether or not to get sucked in, the arab world (and N. Korea) seem to be the only nations excercising that freedom.

 

America is so advanced because of the free slave labor that lead it into the latter half of the 19th century as the fastest growing country in the world. That, and france, russia, germany, and the UK all fell out of the picture.

Quote:

Let's not forget freedom. FREEDOM, if not the U.S. will live a ripe old age.

lol, are you brainwashed? Did Ashcroft tell you a thing or two about freedom?

first of all, since most of us (ie, 51%+) have lived only in the US, many of us couldn't even define freedom.

secondly, is freedom being search before you board a plane because they think you're on to something? Is freedom having your rights as a citizen being stripped away because you have different veiws from the current admisinistration?

ha, the only freedom we really have is choice, and the only good that does for us is when we're shopping.

Quote:

BTW - folks! the end of the world in 2012?? Is your last name Orwell?

actually, it was the Mayan Calender that determined that.


I'm impressed. I'm glad I put these links in my signature. You need to post in here more often.

:clap:

 

still avoiding real work.... skimmed some of the replies.

Heres something a little more optimistic...

Nobody has a real territorial dispute with the US. Our boundaries are pretty much set in stone, and recognized by our neighbors (even though a large chunk of the US was forcefully taken from Mexico, that was a long time ago, and as long as Mexico doesn't become Facist [and not really poor] we don't have to worry about it). All of the examples I've listed of empires that have fallen violently were empires that stretched their boundaries beyond their capacity, through military takeover. The mongolian empire fell because it couldn't generate the infrastructure to govern the bulk of eurasia. The Macedonian empire was segmented into peices because it took too many resources to govern it as a whole.

The US is different. Although we did have our imperial days, we now lay claim to only our own land. As our economic tower crumbles, and thus our world sway deminishes, its possible nobody will challenge us militarily. Whatever the cause of the fall, our house of cards is built with the same deck as everybody elses. When it falls apart, its possible everybody will just say "well, there goes that" and deal with their own problems. I feel as long as America never again occupies its neighbors, we may be able to avert military confrontation. The last world war, and the cold war has tough most of the world (although apparently not us) 1. that war is nasty and should be avoided at all costs, and 2. that fighting over an idea/ideology will get you nowhere. Certainly, everyone (apparently, except Kim Jong Il) fears nuclear weapons, and respects them, and righfull so. Nobody wants to start the next world war. So maybe, as the US fades away, the rest of the world (probably meaning China) will leave us to lick our wounds. Of course, this theory only holds water assuming that the US pulls out of the middle east as soon as it has (well hopefully the UN has) cleaned up the mess thats being made right now.

This too, is possible within a diplomatic/economic hegemony. Athens fell from its economic empire in the mediterranean unchallenged. Since they made no territorial claim (with a couple small exceptions) over another Polis, they weren't confronted. Not until the rise of Phillip of Macedon (a good century after the hight of the Athenian empire) would athens have any real military challenges.

there, hows that sound?

 

just to unload this one...

I'm not trying to make a political statement here (although I easily could). We can all agree that the middle east is a mess, yes? I'm not going to go into the reasons for that mess... they're too complex, and I generally don't like talking politics (at least current) with strangers

 

:thumbup: