Learn From The Fall of Rome

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]pookie wrote:
But who fills the void if the US/Western “empire” draws back into its cocoon. Would the world really be better if Russia was in Iraq (I bet they’d have a nice peaceful nation of very light sleepers by now) or as someone else mentioned, China was vying for control of the Middle East?
[/quote]

Russia had a lot of success in Afghanistan.

Anyway, there have been regions of the world under the control of other people for all of history. Hell, even if the US eventually controlled the entire world, there would still be conflict and strife in various areas.

I’m not willing to get too scared by “the sky is falling” what if’s of this nature.

42

[quote]hedo wrote:

  1. First of all it’s a metaphor, used in the context of this thread but Iran would be at the top of the list, Syria, North Korea… [/quote]

The term was first coined by Vroom on this thread, and I’m willing to bet good money that he had Al-Qaeda in mind when he said “restless barbarians worldwide”. Vroom, care to weight in on this?

Iran, Syria, North Korea or any other country for that matter could ever dream of invading you. I don’t see how could be a metaphor in the context of the thread. But I’m sure you’ll tell us…right?

[quote]2. What order? The order that allows a whiny bitch like you to have the leisure time to spread the cyber Jihad on a US bodybuilding site…(you do workout don’t you?) Free Trade, Global banking, commerce on the high seas…you know things that happen in a world with laws.

Generally referred to as order. Somewhat foriegn to you considering your background but those in the West rather enjoy it. Take the US out of the equation and much of this collapses in the hypothetical examples given. Do you think China would be so benevolent? [/quote]

First of all, stop being a dickhead and quit your cheap shots. That cyber-Jihad-lixy-doesn’t-lift-weights rhetoric is getting really old.

You wrote the following “far easier to eliminate the barbarian threat once and for all and let the world get back to order.”. It’s clear from this statement that something happened which took out the “order”. It’s very VERY safe to assume that you have 9/11 in mind. But feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

The fanciful notion that there was a golden age pre-9/11 is wrong on so many aspects. There was no “disturbance in the force” on 9/11. There was a good deal of corpses which is of course regrettable, but that’s about it. You felt like a gun was put to heads and you freaked out. That’s it. The “order” that ensures free Trade, Global banking, commerce on the high seas remained unchanged.

Be a pal and stop saying that the world needs putting “back in order” to justify the rampage your military is embarked on (and actually has been ever since the end of WWII).

Iraq is a BS war. Iran, Syria, NK would be just as BS. None of them could tackle as much as the 1/100 of your military, let alone find a way to reach your shores.

[quote]4. Actually it is because the force is not needed…yet. It is certainly avilable and the nation would respond if called upon.
[/quote]

Now that’s a fine argument for a change.

I think that in the case of Iraq, the US public wouldn’t allow any more sacrifices. But I have been known to be wrong. We’ll see…

Couldn’t agree more.

43

[quote]hedo wrote:
Your argument that the draft caused a landslide victory for one party or the other is false and no more then wishful thinking presented as fact…typical. [/quote]

That’s actually a strawman. I never made such claim. But I can see where the confusion may have arisen.

Each of us read Vroom’s post from two different perspectives. You read it from a partisan perspective while interpreted it in the broader sense that, despite the government and the media’s best efforts, the US public wouldn’t sit quietly while their drafted fellows are sent to fight BS wars. As far as I know the reason they revoked drafting in the US is precisely that there was a scary uprising of the population. Get it?

44

[quote]lixy wrote:
The term was first coined by Vroom on this thread, and I’m willing to bet good money that he had Al-Qaeda in mind when he said “restless barbarians worldwide”. Vroom, care to weight in on this?
[/quote]

I think the term was contained in Varq’s post, but yes, when I was talking about worldwide barbarians, I had terrorists in mind. A terrorist does not have to contact and get instructions from Al Quaeda in order to cause trouble.

Seriously, the US can crush any single state that dares lend itself out to sponsorship of terrorism. Also, if a state does actually and actively support terrorism, then I will be an advocate of such a war. Sadly, Iraq raises the burden of proof on future claims very high.

45

[quote]pookie wrote:
Sound arguments perfectly intertwined with top grade jokes
[/quote]

If you ever publish a book, sign me up for a couple of copies.

Seriously.

46

[quote]vroom wrote:
However, honestly, executing the option above would create large numbers of barbarians within our own borders. Of course, our own governments could turn into police states to try to control this dissention… thereby begging for their own overthrow in time.[/quote]

Doing it now, yes. What about doing it after a nuke explodes in L.A.? I’m not sure they’d be that much opposition to it.

What would your solution be to, say, the Talibans in Afghanistan? According to our cultural values, they’re stone-age religious nuts who like to rule by oppression. Should we respect that and hope their people can manage to overthrow them when they get sick of it and decide they’d like to join the 21st century?

And while I agree that change from within is best of all, what happens when they start harboring some of our enemies? Do we still live and let live? At what point do we start to think getting involved might be a good idea? When they’re on the brink of going nuclear? (For some reason, bronze age primitives still think cars, AK-47 and nukes are very cool.)

I’m not sure. I think our apathy would win against our outrage with a decisive knock-out. Maybe I’m too cynical.

47

[quote]pookie wrote:
Doing it now, yes. What about doing it after a nuke explodes in L.A.? I’m not sure they’d be that much opposition to it.[/quote]

Well, the problem remains, unless you can find those that are responsible. Randomly throwing nukes at other people in retaliation is not going to win any friends. A tactical strike against the parties responsible, perhaps. A large population destroying city strike?

It might make a lot of people feel good, but do you really think it would bring peace instead of more hatred and violence? Don’t you think such an action would drive a wedge between the US and a lot of western countries?

[quote]
What would your solution be to, say, the Talibans in Afghanistan? According to our cultural values, they’re stone-age religious nuts who like to rule by oppression. Should we respect that and hope their people can manage to overthrow them when they get sick of it and decide they’d like to join the 21st century?[/quote]

If a state truly sponsors or harbors terrorists then war is a good call. Terrorism is an abomination and it should not be allowed by the world community.

Perhaps yours and mine, but there are lots of activists who are perennially looking for a cause. Let’s leave them alone so they continue to have bake sales for some benign purpose.

48

[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
Your argument that the draft caused a landslide victory for one party or the other is false and no more then wishful thinking presented as fact…typical.

That’s actually a strawman. I never made such claim. But I can see where the confusion may have arisen.

Each of us read Vroom’s post from two different perspectives. You read it from a partisan perspective while interpreted it in the broader sense that, despite the government and the media’s best efforts, the US public wouldn’t sit quietly while their drafted fellows are sent to fight BS wars. As far as I know the reason they revoked drafting in the US is precisely that there was a scary uprising of the population. Get it?

[/quote]

Your wrong on both accounts. I didn’t read it from a partisan perspective and you there was no uprising. BS wars is a propaganda term by a jihadist and has no merit so refuting it is moot.

Keep trying…your frustration level is apparent.

49

The article itself was kind of interesting – the comptroller general was using a (tired) historical analogy in order to point out some serious issues within the US government without having to assign any blame for them. A very good strategy for a person in his position… A lot of substantive criticisms are probably valid - even if the historical analogy is flawed.

We’re not in any danger of the kind of Malthusian trap that plagued the Roman empire, and the US’s demographic situation is much healthier than comparable OECD economies - particularly Japan and the EU ( http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/isec.2007.32.1.112 ). Of course, the US birth-rate advantage over China, Russia, and Europe stems largely from immigration effects – which are subject to political uncertainty both in here and abroad. But even minus the immigration effect we’re still better off than most, if not by as much.

50

Here’s the Comptroller General’s more particular analysis w/r/t the US government:

http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d071188cg.pdf

51

I disagree with the whole “america is so powerful” masturbation phantasies.
You’re the ONE superpower, that’s for sure.
But you’re not ROME, one way or the other.

@the idea of draft
before that happens, there must be a major unconstitutional landslide towards fascism. I know that some guys are working on that right now but still…
Also, sending the few remaining sons you have into a potential/self fulfilling WW3 is retarded.

@hedo: Syria are among the barbarians? And North Korea??? North Korea has no resources and no tactical weapons you fear. The Romans didn’t invade the northpole for a reason.
And yes it’s a BS war

@HH: “establishing functional democracy in the middle east”. You know that England,probably THE cradle of libertarianism, that tiny island, is the only place where a true democratic revolution from below occurred. The western neighbors, who basically share the same ideas and beliefs, had a far tougher time. In my country, it took over hundred years till we had a peaceful democracy. Now imagine a land where big parts are still in the dark ages, where there is absolutely no confidence in “Rule of law” (Rechtsstaat), they have different beliefs and big parts of the youth is already ideologically ignited. Do you want to supervise the change to good democracy for the next one hundred years, with an army at least twice as big? Have fun, not gonna happen.

@pookie
“The US could decide to nuke everything between Israel and India, and technologically, no one could stop them. Only the sheer horror of such a carnage makes that option uncontemplable”.

Wrong. Using nukes in our century is not to be trifled with. The others could use theirs too, you know. Even the french arsenal would wipe out all your big cities without doubt. Atomic power is a bad contest of phallic length.

52

[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:

  1. First of all it’s a metaphor, used in the context of this thread but Iran would be at the top of the list, Syria, North Korea…

The term was first coined by Vroom on this thread, and I’m willing to bet good money that he had Al-Qaeda in mind when he said “restless barbarians worldwide”. Vroom, care to weight in on this?

Iran, Syria, North Korea or any other country for that matter could ever dream of invading you. I don’t see how could be a metaphor in the context of the thread. But I’m sure you’ll tell us…right?

  1. What order? The order that allows a whiny bitch like you to have the leisure time to spread the cyber Jihad on a US bodybuilding site…(you do workout don’t you?) Free Trade, Global banking, commerce on the high seas…you know things that happen in a world with laws.

Generally referred to as order. Somewhat foriegn to you considering your background but those in the West rather enjoy it. Take the US out of the equation and much of this collapses in the hypothetical examples given. Do you think China would be so benevolent?

First of all, stop being a dickhead and quit your cheap shots. That cyber-Jihad-lixy-doesn’t-lift-weights rhetoric is getting really old.

You wrote the following “far easier to eliminate the barbarian threat once and for all and let the world get back to order.”. It’s clear from this statement that something happened which took out the “order”. It’s very VERY safe to assume that you have 9/11 in mind. But feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

The fanciful notion that there was a golden age pre-9/11 is wrong on so many aspects. There was no “disturbance in the force” on 9/11. There was a good deal of corpses which is of course regrettable, but that’s about it. You felt like a gun was put to heads and you freaked out. That’s it. The “order” that ensures free Trade, Global banking, commerce on the high seas remained unchanged.

Be a pal and stop saying that the world needs putting “back in order” to justify the rampage your military is embarked on (and actually has been ever since the end of WWII).

  1. BS War…wow. Some argument. Please keep striving for mediocracy, you don’t seem to be having any problem reaching it.

Iraq is a BS war. Iran, Syria, NK would be just as BS. None of them could tackle as much as the 1/100 of your military, let alone find a way to reach your shores.

  1. Actually it is because the force is not needed…yet. It is certainly avilable and the nation would respond if called upon.

Now that’s a fine argument for a change.

I think that in the case of Iraq, the US public wouldn’t allow any more sacrifices. But I have been known to be wrong. We’ll see…

Always good for the enemy to underestimate the US. Lixy you should hardly be suprised that the US doesn’t seek advice from the enemy and those who support them.

Couldn’t agree more.[/quote]

So your response is basically “no it isn’t”. And it’s a “bullshit war”. Quite effective rhetoric. I’m sure the cell leader is proud. Freaked out was also a poor choice of words. Responded is more accurate. Not that a poor choice of words is something unusual for you right?

Your a kid who was in school in the Arab world and then moved to Western Europe to live off the dole. What would you know about commerce and order in the world besides what you read on the internet. You actually would have had to participate to opine Lixy.

You really aren’t up to this type of debate. Your knowledge is not even Wikpedia deep on this one. You also have this delusion that people give a shit about your opinion Lixy. If you could read, with an open mind, you would get it but you don’t. You are having a very bad week. If you had any pride or shame you’d realize that but it is apparent you have niether. You need to take a big step back and realize you are often wrong and most of the people you argue with have a lot more experience and wisdom then you do. Your agenda doesn’t serve you well when presented with facts and well constructed arguments…as you and everyone else can see. How many times does T Bolt have to bash your head in and embarass you…have you no shame at all.

I’m glad you think I’m a dickhead. And no I will not stop calling you a cyber-Jihadist as long as you keep acting like one. Then again I probably will still you remind you of it even if you did. You have over a thousand posts and all but a handful are in the political section of a US BODYBUILDING site. This is in keeping with the cyber Jihad principle of inundating sports and entertainment sites with your garbage. You’ve been called out and you have done nothing to refute it or demonstrate otherwise. In fact each post you make digs you deeper. I find it comical and let’s be honest do you really think you are taken seriosuly anymore.

And yes if you actually worked out and contributed something to the forums people would tolerate you more.

Lot’s of friendships have been built on this site by people who train together, share ideas, network etc. I highy doubt anyone is looking to train with a 150ib. weenie like you.
Your frustration amuses us you know.

53

[quote]vroom wrote:
Well, the problem remains, unless you can find those that are responsible. Randomly throwing nukes at other people in retaliation is not going to win any friends. A tactical strike against the parties responsible, perhaps. A large population destroying city strike?[/quote]

No one is suggesting throwing them at random, but any terrorist attack that has enough impact to invite nuclear retaliation will leave some trail.

Picking it up and following it is not that difficult if your security people know what they’re doing.

Any country that’s shown to be harboring the planners and who refuses to cooperate with bringing them to justice probably won’t get much public sympathy, just as Afghanistan did cause much of a public stir when the US and NATO marched in.

If a terrorist harboring country gets nuked, do you think other countries might think twice before knowingly harboring them? Those who do so unknowingly probably wouldn’t object to foreign intervention, once it’s shown where the terrorists are (and with something better than trucks on Powerpoint slides, please.)

So we agree on this point.

What about a case like Iran? A country that’s not friendly to the West; and is building up to an eventual nuclear arsenal. Do we let it happen? Assuming all economic and/or diplomatic avenues (and we must exhaust those first) fail, do we risk it? With the accompanying risk of terrorists groups having a much closer and much more sympathetic source for nukes.

I think activists are a relatively minuscule portion of the population. Too few in numbers to cause a revolution or similar massive upheaval.

54

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I disagree with the whole “america is so powerful” masturbation phantasies.
You’re the ONE superpower, that’s for sure.
But you’re not ROME, one way or the other.

@the idea of draft
before that happens, there must be a major unconstitutional landslide towards fascism. I know that some guys are working on that right now but still…
Also, sending the few remaining sons you have into a potential/self fulfilling WW3 is retarded.

@hedo: Syria are among the barbarians? And North Korea??? North Korea has no resources and no tactical weapons you fear. The Romans didn’t invade the northpole for a reason.
And yes it’s a BS war

@HH: “establishing functional democracy in the middle east”. You know that England,probably THE cradle of libertarianism, that tiny island, is the only place where a true democratic revolution from below occurred. The western neighbors, who basically share the same ideas and beliefs, had a far tougher time. In my country, it took over hundred years till we had a peaceful democracy. Now imagine a land where big parts are still in the dark ages, where there is absolutely no confidence in “Rule of law” (Rechtsstaat), they have different beliefs and big parts of the youth is already ideologically ignited. Do you want to supervise the change to good democracy for the next one hundred years, with an army at least twice as big? Have fun, not gonna happen.

@pookie
“The US could decide to nuke everything between Israel and India, and technologically, no one could stop them. Only the sheer horror of such a carnage makes that option uncontemplable”.

Wrong. Using nukes in our century is not to be trifled with. The others could use theirs too, you know. Even the french arsenal would wipe out all your big cities without doubt. Atomic power is a bad contest of phallic length.
[/quote]

North Korea has nuclear weapons…it’s not exactly a secret. They are also providing missles to IRan and Syria. It’s not exactly a secret.

Nobody claimed the US was Rome. It was used as a comparison. And I’m sure you meant “fantasy” which would make more sense. A BS war…that’s good you are quoting lixy. Eurabia is scheduled to occur about 2050. He’ll be lookimg for a dhimmi. You guys beeter get busy fucking and have more kids because it doesn’t seem like you are going to fight to preserve yourselves.

55

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Wrong. Using nukes in our century is not to be trifled with. The others could use theirs too, you know. Even the french arsenal would wipe out all your big cities without doubt. Atomic power is a bad contest of phallic length.[/quote]

Well my nightmare scenario won’t happen, because too many powerful neighbors would get pissed off.

But using a nuke in some limited manner somewhere? I’m not sure I share your optimism. I hope you’re right, though.

Take Iraq as an example. Even if most of the world opinion was against it, no one mobilized their armies to ally with Iraq and stand against the US.

If there was a large scale attack on US soil, and the US decided to retaliate with nukes, I’m not sure France or China would really want to engage in a bluffing game with the US when they’re not the main target.

56

[quote]hedo wrote:
Not a single argument. Just more cyber Jihad blah blah… [/quote]

Why am I not surprised that you dodged every point and went straight for the personal attacks? Oh, I know, I predicted it…right?

Yes, I’m a newb. Get over it! And it’s 170lbs and gaining…

Geez, I can’t believe what was a very promising thread turned into this. Kudos for ruining the day!

57

[quote]pookie wrote:
If a terrorist harboring country gets nuked, do you think other countries might think twice before knowingly harboring them? [/quote]

I don’t think nuking is necessary. Everybody got their acts together right after the bombing of Afghanistan. NATO bombing is not a nuke, but it was more than enough to act as a deterrent.

58

[quote]pookie wrote:
Take Iraq as an example. Even if most of the world opinion was against it, no one mobilized their armies to ally with Iraq and stand against the US. [/quote]

There’s a good reason for that. And that is that they’ll get crushed like ants.

59

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
In a volunteer military, a tiny percentage of the population will bear the cost of war. That’s the strongest argument for a draft, in my book, despite all the problems it would cause the military, that it could lead to a regeneration of civic virtue and responsibility.

I agree 100%.

It would set our readiness back, but I think everyone should have to serve their country. Paying taxes not withstanding.

Ah, pro-slavery?

Nope. Pro-service. [/quote]

Involuntary gun-to-your-head “service”.

There is a word for it.

Slavery.

60

[quote]pookie wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Wrong. Using nukes in our century is not to be trifled with. The others could use theirs too, you know. Even the french arsenal would wipe out all your big cities without doubt. Atomic power is a bad contest of phallic length.

Well my nightmare scenario won’t happen, because too many powerful neighbors would get pissed off.

But using a nuke in some limited manner somewhere? I’m not sure I share your optimism. I hope you’re right, though.

Take Iraq as an example. Even if most of the world opinion was against it, no one mobilized their armies to ally with Iraq and stand against the US.

If there was a large scale attack on US soil, and the US decided to retaliate with nukes, I’m not sure France or China would really want to engage in a bluffing game with the US when they’re not the main target.
[/quote]

Agreed, again.
I hope you can agree with me now, that using one or maybe even a couple of small nukes without too much protest from the western world would encourage enormously countries like Russia and perhaps Israel to use their own atomic wild card. (These two are the only two sure candidates) And who could refuse them that that right?

THAT is my nightmare scenario.