I have a client who recently came back from working in Afghanistan and Uzbekistan (sp). I asked him to tell me about Uzbekistan (sp) because it is a former part of the soviet union and I always wondered how all of those countries have been doing since the split.
He told me that Uzbekistan (sp)has a very oppressive government but the U.S. takes a very hands off approach to the country because we have a major air force base there. He went on to say that the more of these countries that his visits (he is in the generator and turbine business) the more he believes that we (the united states) have wonderful principles that we will readily espouse to the rest of the world yet in practice our governments policies are still based on our ability to keep a sphere of influence in every part of the world, regardless of the humanitarian cost (think the backing of the psycho pinochot in chile).
This guy is a very successful man and served his nation bravely as a forward observer for the artilliry in the army during the korean war.
When you read about the roman empire during it’s heyday, you find that the job of the emporer and the regional governors was to do what ever they could to provide stability to their region of the empire, no matter what the cost. It seems like our nation is heading in the same direction.
I suppose that is a fair assessment. A friend of mine was talking about this very thing the other day and she mentioned that almost all the major empires (refer back to Rome) have lasted around 200 years before they fell.
If this is true and your question about the comparrison of the U.S. to Rome is close then perhaps we are next…or perhaps we will defy the odds and percevere, just as the good ol’ U.S.A. always has.
Isn’t stability a good thing?
Just because we are doing something that the Roman Empire did does not make the deed itself inherently bad.
Oh sure, I could think of other things that point us in that direction. But I don’t see this as one of them.
The US’s relations with other countries are more to do with economic and strategic interests than the supposed principles they espouse. Case in point: Saudi. Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Iran under the Shah. Panama. etc.etc.
The old ‘totalitarian regime, human rights, opression’ argument is not enough in itself for the US to act, unless other interests are at stake.
Um… 200 years? I could be wrong, but wasn’t the Roman Empire around before Jesus, and “fell” in the 400s?
THe president of uzbekistan is a major league ass hole…no doubt. But the guestion is what can we do about it. This is a country that has/had large quantities of nuclear warheads, is an enviromental wastland with no serviceable ports and is triple land locked…its pretty fucked in general and other than some beautiful places left over from old caravan routes there is nothing but desert, mountains and no arrable land…
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Um… 200 years? I could be wrong, but wasn’t the Roman Empire around before Jesus, and “fell” in the 400s?[/quote]
100 years is historically closer to how long an expire is able to expand before it stagnates and collapses.
For example Rome was a Republic and confined largely to Southern Italy and Tunisia before Julius Caesar (circa 50 B.C.). The Empire was rotten on the inside long before a few Germans and Huns invaded in the 400’s. Maybe take Nero’s reign as a sign of internal weakness and corruption (circa 50 A.D.). That gives about 100-year reign as a dynamic strong expanding empire.
The same cycle of expansion and strength followed by internal weakness and decline mirrors more recent Empires.
For example:
Portugal 1450-1550 as a major power
Spain 1500-1600 as a major power
Dutch (who succeed from Spain in its weakness) 1600-1700 as a major power
First English Empire (i.e. in America) 1700-1800. Until the American Revolution.
Second English Empire (i.e. After American revolution everywhere Asian, Africa, India, Australia etc) 1800-1900. Basically from Waterloo to the First World War.
All lasted about 100 years as major empires until decline set in. Usually internal decline precede external decline. The Barbarian Hordes were really just a few in numbers in comparison to Rome. But Rome was so corrupt internally it did not matter.
American Empire 1900-? Basically a major power from the First World War to?
“There never was a democracy that didn’t commit suicide.” The Framers [of the constitution] were all agreed on that: on a straight up or down vote, eventually the have-nots will despoil the haves. “Democracy endures until the voters realize they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.”
Hmmm “vote themselves largess from the public treasury”. Who would ever do that??
bluey, you do have a point, but I think it’s a bit arbitrary. Even if Rome was “in decline,” it was the major power until it fell. Eh, too tired to argue it.
I would say that we are pretty imperialsitic, but so what? I can argue that the world is more or less a better place due to our influence. If we profit from it, and increase our influence, so what? The U.S. surely isn’t perfect, but we can’t do everything.
It is interesting that every one refers to the U.S.A as a democracy. We are a republic, and not a democracy.
[quote]haney wrote:
It is interesting that every one refers to the U.S.A as a democracy. We are a republic, and not a democracy.[/quote]
It’s astounding how many people don’t know the difference.
We’re both, a Democratic Republic, the two aren’t mutually exclusive you know.
thats bullshit…we are set up as a republic…since that time the idea and defintion of democracy has evolved. We may be a republic, but that doesnt mean under current meanings, understandings, and connotations, that we are not a democracy.
The fact that any citizen may run for office and become a senator, representative, president, governor, etc. means that we are a democracy(demos=people, cracy=rule or governance by). The government is composed of and elected by the people… as opposed to an aristocracy, where there is a ruling class of nobility (ariston = “the best”), or a meritocracy where one achieves power in proportion to his achievement and ability. Though we are, of course, a representative democracy, we are not forced to select from a group of pre-chosen candidates who meet stringent requirements of office. I don’t know if that’s a good thing or not, but it’s another debate…
Anyhow, it would be infeasible to construct a “true” Athenian democracy, in which every enfranchised male voted on every issue (including trials). The only reason democracy was possible in Athens was because you had a small city-state (polis) rather than a large country, and you also had a very large slave class, who took care of the real work while the men hung around arguing politics all day. Most people who like to say how the US isn’t a “real democracy” don’t generally point out that a “real democracy” is often not desirable. See the trial of Socrates as an example. “True democracy” has a tendency to break down into mob rule… which is why Plato and Aristotle became so concerned with constitutionalism. It is also the reason that the framers legally recognized our inalienable rights… so that the authoritarian masses wouldn’t crush those who might be the driving force behind innovation and discovery. See John Stuart Mill.
And I still think that it’s stretching things quite a bit to say that Rome was only good for 100 years, and then went into “decline.” That’s an awfully Platonic, and I think wrong, worldview. States are not born, grow up, become powerful, and then decline in the nice triangle graph that this implies… there are periods of unrest, periods of prosperity, etc.
Our time periods aren’t even remotely similar… in previous eras, to be defeated in battle might mean the eradication of your state, or the complete subjugation of your people to another power. Now, we tend to sign treaties after war. Spain isn’t going to try to take over France. Just isn’t going to happen. Even if the US were to enter into a period of decline, we’d likely emerge from it for a period, regain status, and then eventually decline again. But those are just my two cents.
It is a sad sign of the times that the US can be referred to as an empire, with such minimal outcry. Some people could use a good dose of real empire-style oppression to help 'em wake the f*** up.
I am not articulate enough, at the moment, to offer the kind of response such suggestions of US tyranny deserve. Instead, I will concede that the US is not perfect. And, I will request a little more balance and perspective from those who would so easily insult what is probably the most virtuous world power this planet has ever seen. Fair-minded criticism is cool; clueless, delusional, ignorant whining is not.
Suggestion for those who need it (you know who you are): lay off the Noam Chomsky a bit, and broaden your sources.
All empires in are history have fallen out of power, even the mighty Rome the model for all future empires divided and eventual fell.
It is not if the U.S will fall but when!
If we fall, we’re taking everyone with us. I FUCKING PROMISE. RLTW
rangertab75