# The Fall of Pax Americana



## Makalakumu (Mar 22, 2004)

On another thread, a tangential discussion was initiated concerning the similarities and differences between the Late Roman Republic and the current state of American politics.  I would very much like to continue this discussion, perhaps even pulling in people who might have actually studied Roman history in depth.  Myself, I have read a few books and am currently reading a book on the History of the Roman Republic.  This in no way qualifies me as an expert, but it has sparked some opinions...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 22, 2004)

Pax Americana is following in the footsteps of the ancient late Roman republic. Some of the information that supports this...

1. Weathly landowners (precapitolists in roman days multinational corporations in ours) are consolidating ALL wealth leaving the majority with very little.
2. Economic dominion enforced with military activities.
3. Satallite nations set up militarily as part of the Empire. This was justified with the argument "we are showing them a better way of governing themselves...(analogous to democratizing) Has anyone ever read PNAC?
4. Social change suppressed through information control.
5. Social leaders who aspire to level the playing field are assassinated.
6. Success in politics depends upon financial backing
7. Perhaps someone else can add a few more similarities to this list...

Sometimes historical examples and analogies are silly and far fetched. This one is not. Read and learn. It follows that since our country was founded on many old Roman Republic laws that our country could suffer the same fate.

Who will be our Imperator?

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 24, 2004)

> 1. Weathly landowners (precapitolists in roman days multinational corporations in ours) are consolidating ALL wealth leaving the majority with very little.



The majority of citizens of the United States are blessed with a great deal of upward economic mobility.  Even our "lower class" is better off, financially, than in any other nation of the world.



> 2. Economic dominion enforced with military activities.



I think this is stretching socio-political realities too far.  We do not "enforce economic dominion."  Trade is consensual, not forced.  Pick up any six items at a Wal*Mart and you'll find at least five of them manufactured in China.  Our trade deficit is wildly out of proportion in other nations' favor.  Are we "enforcing economic dominion" on them, or they us?  In both cases the trade is done by consenting adults, not at gunpoint.



> 3. Satallite nations set up militarily as part of the Empire. This was justified with the argument "we are showing them a better way of governing themselves...(analogous to democratizing) Has anyone ever read PNAC?



This one is arguable but rendered moot by the United States' eventual withdrawl from Iraq.  Be careful you don't start arguing for the benefits of murderous dictatorships, however.  The natural state of free people is self-government;  showing contempt for that concept is dangerous ground.



> 4. Social change suppressed through information control.



There is no "information control."  By definition the very things people are comlaining about _would not be known_ if information could be effective controlled.  It can't.  This does not mean the government has not tried to do so -- but it will never manage it.  It cannot be done.



> 5. Social leaders who aspire to level the playing field are assassinated.



Which "social leaders" are these, by whom were they assassinated, and on what grounds does one "level the playing field" at the expense of those who've earned what they have?  Egalitarianism sounds noble but is essentially immoral.



> 6. Success in politics depends upon financial backing



That's very true.  We have only ourselves to blame, however.

7. Perhaps someone else can add a few more similarities to this list...



> Sometimes historical examples and analogies are silly and far fetched. This one is not.



No, this one is, though there there are shades of similarity here and there.

Since Bush's election the Left has been crying doom and gloom and the end of the world as we know it -- much as the Right was crying when Clinton was in office.  With the election of the next Democrat president, the roles will flip-flop again.  Life will go on and little will change.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 24, 2004)

Thank you Sharp Phil, I was feeling a little alone on this discussion topic.  Your points are more clearly articulated than I could make.  Refer to IRAQ ON THE RECORD for the origins of this thread.


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 24, 2004)

So when will our great empire fall, and why?


----------



## someguy (Mar 24, 2004)

All things are born to die.  Abit synical but I can't really think of anything of this world that won't. 
There are similarities between the two I'll give you that much upnorthkyosa but everything has similarities.  I could comparer Jesus and Hitler if I want to.  Both had gigantic impacts on Jews in their times.  Obviously they are very differnt and I don't need to prove that as I'm sure every one would agree right?
INformation can and probably has been controled you can't prove that it hasn't or else you wouldn't know about it.
Surely America will fall someday but I don't want to be around to see it just as the fall of Rome was gigantic and sent shock waves across the earth for years and years (well not into the Americas but still) America (in the sense of the United States) will cause serious problems when it falls.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 24, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> All things are born to die.  Abit synical but I can't really think of anything of this world that won't.
> There are similarities between the two I'll give you that much upnorthkyosa but everything has similarities.  I could comparer Jesus and Hitler if I want to.  Both had gigantic impacts on Jews in their times.  Obviously they are very differnt and I don't need to prove that as I'm sure every one would agree right?
> INformation can and probably has been controled you can't prove that it hasn't or else you wouldn't know about it.
> Surely America will fall someday but I don't want to be around to see it just as the fall of Rome was gigantic and sent shock waves across the earth for years and years (well not into the Americas but still) America (in the sense of the United States) will cause serious problems when it falls.



Agreed, Someguy.  The Roman Empire's fall did send shock waves, but spread out of over years and years.  First it divided into smaller separate empires, Roman empire, Byzantine, Northern are the ones I know of off hand.  Interestingly, like your point about similarities between many things, Euro leaders for a long time still used the term Caesar and the true empire model:  German Kaiser, Russian Czar... both titles derived from Caesar, both nations far more empirialistic than the USA/Roman comparison.  Heck, the USSR rise and fall probably is the closest modern comparison to the Roman rise and fall that I can think of - of course some of my basis is the propaganda of a US education in the shadow of the cold war, so take that opinion with a grain of salt.

I would think that a comparison to the trading empires of England/Dutch/Spanish might be more accurate comparison/analogy in reference to the USA


----------



## heretic888 (Mar 24, 2004)

Hrmmm....

My personal conjecture is that the "American Empire" (as it is so-called) will probably continue on as long as there is human life on Earth, albeit in a different form. It can be argued that the Roman Empire still exists, but in a different form.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 24, 2004)

Phil has some interesting points, but they all refer back to a particular point of view - his.  This type of discussion can get really muddy in a hurry because I can make all sorts of connections between similiar events and people can go and point of differences that chop up those connections.  The similarities still exist, though.  

This brings up an interesting question...there are many in this country who believe that learning about history helps one prevent old mistakes.  If this is so, how does one go about showing similarities to historical events?  How does one take two events that are temporally different and link them so that a future atrocity does not occur?

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 24, 2004)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> The majority of citizens of the United States are blessed with a great deal of upward economic mobility.  Even our "lower class" is better off, financially, than in any other nation of the world..



Within the Roman Empire itself, upward mobility was possible if you were a Roman Citizen.  For those who lived in the conquered territories, there was very little chance of making your life better.  I believe that this is analogous to what we see today.  In my own life, I have been able to rise far above the class I was born into because of the hard work I accomplished.  This was only possible, though, because I was a United States Citizen.  In other countries where the US has installed a corporate sponsored dictator, this is not possible.



			
				Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> I think this is stretching socio-political realities too far.  We do not "enforce economic dominion."  Trade is consensual, not forced.  Pick up any six items at a Wal*Mart and you'll find at least five of them manufactured in China.  Our trade deficit is wildly out of proportion in other nations' favor.  Are we "enforcing economic dominion" on them, or they us?  In both cases the trade is done by consenting adults, not at gunpoint.



Our trade deficit reflects the fact that we are producing less because other countries can produce good more cheaply.  If you redefine slave labor so that workers who make less then 25 cents per day now qualify, you find yourself with a neat parable between the US and the Romans.



			
				Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> This one is arguable but rendered moot by the United States' eventual withdrawl from Iraq.  Be careful you don't start arguing for the benefits of murderous dictatorships, however.  The natural state of free people is self-government;  showing contempt for that concept is dangerous ground..



Perceived withdrawl.  What we see on the telescreen is not reality.



			
				Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> There is no "information control."  By definition the very things people are comlaining about _would not be known_ if information could be effective controlled.  It can't.  This does not mean the government has not tried to do so -- but it will never manage it.  It cannot be done...



Total information control cannot be accomplished.  You don't need that in a democracy, though.  All you need to do is control enough to "convince" the majority that you are correct.  This, too, was very Roman.  For reference, take a look at Julius Caeser's writtings about his campaign in Gaul.



			
				Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> Which "social leaders" are these, by whom were they assassinated, and on what grounds does one "level the playing field" at the expense of those who've earned what they have?  Egalitarianism sounds noble but is essentially immoral.



Egalitarianism is natural is a natural response to an inequity if the balance of energy, but that is besides the point.  JFK, MLK, RFK, PW ect....



			
				Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> No, this one is, though there there are shades of similarity here and there.



Refer to my previous post and the questions posed.



			
				Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> Since Bush's election the Left has been crying doom and gloom and the end of the world as we know it -- much as the Right was crying when Clinton was in office.  With the election of the next Democrat president, the roles will flip-flop again.  Life will go on and little will change.



In a system where both sides are the same people, nothing changing would be the predictable outcome.  In Roman times this was also the case.  Take a look at the case of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus for reference.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 24, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Phil has some interesting points, but they all refer back to a particular point of view - his. This type of discussion can get really muddy in a hurry because I can make all sorts of connections between similiar events and people can go and point of differences that chop up those connections. The similarities still exist, though.


The "similarities" are your point of view....point out all you want...dosent mean we have to accept/believe them.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 24, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The "similarities" are your point of view....point out all you want...dosent mean we have to accept/believe them.



Which is why I asked the questions I did.  Are we doomed to repeat the past?  Will people always ignore connections for fear of seeing the future?  Is it always going to be someones point of view, or is there anyway to present this objectively?


----------



## Tgace (Mar 25, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Which is why I asked the questions I did.  Are we doomed to repeat the past?  Will people always ignore connections for fear of seeing the future?  Is it always going to be someones point of view, or is there anyway to present this objectively?



Just because theres similarities dosent mean theres going to be a repeat of history....Im pretty shure you could stretch a comparison between the US and the colonial British Empire too...which history are we going to repeat??? You are taking the comparison too literally and to far.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 25, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Just because theres similarities dosent mean theres going to be a repeat of history....Im pretty shure you could stretch a comparison between the US and the colonial British Empire too...which history are we going to repeat??? You are taking the comparison too literally and to far.



What do you expect to see?  If history is going to be useful to us as a society, what do you expect to see, as a skeptic, to predict future events?  That is the purpose of history isn't it?  Or is history Orwellian, in the sense that it is mutable and does not matter?  

The fact of the matter remains, there are similarities and differences.  No event is going to exactly repeat an event from history.  Where is the threshold for comparison?  If I am taking the comparison too far, where is the line that I crossed?  I will rescind my comment regarding the phrase "nearly analogous" though.  It was a bit fervent.  Other then that, the points I made, will remain the same.

From your comments, I'm sensing an unmentioned bias.  The fall of America seems deeply offensive to you and others who have participated in this discussion.  Of course, I could be wrong and I know that I am treading on the turf of Bulverism, but could this bias be skewing what YOU see?

I am certainly no expert on Roman history.  In fact, I have read a total of three books on the subject and have had one college class - hardly enough to be considered a savant.  Still, I sense that there are some important lessons that history can teach us in these days.  

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 25, 2004)

The Roman Republic/Empire lasted 1,000 years.  In its existance, they united the known world, created concepts and institutions that survive today.  Their technology was the best of time, having plumbing, electricity and advanced medicine.

They were destroyed from within and without.  The barbarians at the gates beat them down and eventually broke them.  Internal corruption, greed and abuses destroyed the infastructure.   They stopped growing, became decadent and died.

The US is faced with external problems that weaken us. (Terrorists, corrupt allies, bad alliances, trade deficits, etc). They are faced with internal problems that are eating away at our core. (Corrupt polititions, corporate greed, a growing obese population who could care less about anything but themselves, lack of internal programs to solve the growing issues, and a growing disenfranchisement of the voting class among other problems).

The US, like Briton, and Rome has a group of satelite states(nations) who are either protectorates (Puerto Rico), dependent on US Military for protection (Japan) primary trade partners (UK) or major military allies (UK).  We have military pressences in a wide number of allied nations. (Germany, Saudi Arabia, etc.)  

The similarities vary in detail...some are strikingly identical, others only if you squint alot while standing on 1 foot at high noon....but they are there.

Rome went from being a Republic, to being an Emperor.  This occured when the Roman Senate gave Gaius Octavius the name Augustus and he became the undisputed emperor after years of bitter civil war. Contrary to popular belief, Gaius Julius Caesar was never emperor.  He was in fact dictator of the Republic.  Octavius was his heir.

The dictatorship was formed when the people and the military no longer had the desire to exist under the old rules. 

For reference: http://www.crystalinks.com/romanempire.html


> His first step was to repair the bitter wounds of civil war. On January 13 of 27 BC, Octavian, in his own words, "transferred the Republic from my own power to the authority of the Senate and the Roman people." This action showed shrewd political planning, as Augustus used it purely for public show. The Senate awarded him the name of Augustus, and mobs demanded that he retain power. Augustus carefully retained the titles of traditional offices to disguise his absolute power. He kept only the offices of consul and proconsul and claimed that he held no more power than his colleagues. Some Romans complained that the loss of liberty was too great a price to pay for peace, but most recognized that under the so-called liberty of the Roman Republic, a few hundred men had divided the spoils of empire while the workers and the provincials suffered. The majority of Romans welcomed the peace and stability of the Augustan Age.
> 
> Augustus did not derive his power from any single office, but from the authority of his name and his victory. In fact, he carefully pieced together a patchwork of powers that allowed him to be an absolute ruler and yet avoid the hatred Caesar aroused as dictator. In Latin, the name Augustus implies both political authority and religious respect. The Romans had for some time called Octavian imperator, a title once awarded to victorious generals that soon became associated with the ruler and thus led to the English word emperor. In 27 BC he was first called princeps (leading man of the state), which later became the official title of the Roman emperors. His imperium, or military authority, extended throughout the empire and was greater than the power of any other governor or general.
> 
> Augustus, in reality, held as much power as any absolute dictator, but wisely disguised it with traditional names so that the other Roman officials, and particularly senators, would still feel pride in their positions. The Senate was not an elected body; it drew its membership from the Roman aristocratic classes, primarily former magistrates who had served in important administrative posts. To be a senator was a matter of status, not a formal job. Under the republic, the Senate held great authority as the institution that preserved Roman knowledge and tradition and became the dominant force in religion, public policy, and foreign affairs. Senators jealously guarded the power and the wealth that resulted from their role in Roman government.



So in Rome, you had a civil war, political manuvering and the creation of new organizations, etc.
In the US we have Homeland Security, The Patriot Act, The Patriot Act II, expanded powers given to various government agencies like the FBI/CIA, political corruption (paying a bit much at the pump? Its not supply n demand, its gouging plain and simple), and an administration that is seeking to divide a nation and distract our attention while consolidating power.

The faces are different, the names have been changed, and the techniques are different, but the road we travel down is the same. The question is....is it too late to turn the tide that was began with the first coup in the 60's?

- We can not today raise an army.  Americans are too fat, lazy and self absorbed.  Plus, what good will 100 armed rednecks do against 10 trained Rangers?
- Trying to vote them out only changes the face of the evil. Unless you are a member of the "Big 2" you don't stand a chance.  Too much apathy, too many folks thinking "its a throwaway vote, so I aint bothering", too many barriers against entry and the decks stacked against you.
- Hoping that we are conquered by a more enlightened society seems futile. Those with more manpower are even more opressive.  We got the best gear. So, unless we get invaded by Klingons, we have to figure this mess out ourselves. 

The American People need to put down their remote controls, get off their couches, wake up, take the time to understand the issues, form their own -educated- opinions and then raise their voices up and make them heard.  A million man march demanding the resignation of the President would be nice.  A million e-mails are worthless. Million man marches occuring all over the country...now that would be a nice sign.

Maybe, its time to stop worrying about what someone said in 1965, or what 2 people do in the privacy of their homes, and start worrying about things like our childrens education, high crime, drug abuse, poverty, our roads, our air, our telecommunications and transportation systems, our land, our food and our water?

Or, we can go bomb some more 3rd world nations (who have wealth we can use), and wave the flag, and ride the charriot, as a conquering hero.  Where has the guy who whispers "Remember thou art mortal!" gone?


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 25, 2004)

It seems that any counter opinion to your point about Pax Amer. is met with an accusation of blindness/lack of sophistication or perception.  As if you are in a minority of clear seers and the rest of us are doomed to repeat history - and that repetition would always be a bad thing.

I am sure that there are others, with authority because they sought office and were appointed/hire/voted into said position who are just as versed on history and are hoping/planning and working toward ways to avoid past mistakes.

I get your point, I don't think it is exclusively relatable to the USA, or that Rome is the only other major civilization that could be compared to the US.  I also think that societies, like evolution and life in general has a life cycle.  I don't think it is avoidable that an end will come.  I don't think it is avoidable that there will be corruption when humans are in the mix - in any group.

If your defense against counter point is going to be that others are just stating opinion, how can it be an equal or open discussion?  Your opinion colors your presentation of the 'facts.' How about proving your 'opinion about satellite nations:  Which countries are these, and how do we manipulate them?

Can you see the possible analogy to the Trading empires, or USSR's rise and fall to the Romans?  No one is claiming to be blind to possible corruption in government or that there is a possible fall for the USA as a super power.  MY OPINION is that you are more interested in being proven right than in having a discussion.  That you are more motivated by the idea that anyone who doesn't agree with you is not respecting your position.

I see it, just don't think it is the only analogy of civiliations that will work, or that it is as dooms day as you are making it out to be.  Don't worry, if your right time will tell, but by then I will be more concerned with other things to remember.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 25, 2004)

"I am certainly no expert on Roman history. In fact, I have read a total of three books on the subject and have had one college class - hardly enough to be considered a savant. Still, I sense that there are some important lessons that history can teach us in these days."

History is just there, good bad or otherwise.  If you are referring to usefulness, you have to establish what type of goal or task is being accomplished.  You have to decide what your tool box of ideas will be filled with, and what type of tool history will be in this overview.  

I don't think that human political development will ever follow a gentle curve of cultural evolution to perfection - because people have not accomplished this in anything.  The only category we, as a race, could claim any 'advancement in is technology - i.e. tools.  But, as the users of those tools -both mental/physical- humans on a global scale have proven to be motivated by altruistic as well as greedy desires - whether Roman or Hun, Goth or Japanese.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 25, 2004)

"The question is....is it too late to turn the tide that was began with the first coup in the 60's?"

What Coup?
Did armed troops storm the white house?

If the comparison of civil war is relevant, it needs to be compared to the Civil War (US).  I think we came out of that one with a unified country under a President.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 25, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> "The question is....is it too late to turn the tide that was began with the first coup in the 60's?"
> 
> What Coup?
> Did armed troops storm the white house?
> ...


No, they put a bullet through the skull of a sitting president. This was later repeated when his brother bagan his run for the throne.
Who is "They"?
Depends on who you ask....everyone from 1 lone commie to George Bush Sr.


Link

As to the "Unified Country" bit.....
physically, yes.
mentally, spiritually and socially?
Nope. The system of "reconstruction" of the "conquered south" created wounds that fester even today.

Let us also not forget...that President also was assassinated.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 25, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> No, they put a bullet through the skull of a sitting president. This was later repeated when his brother bagan his run for the throne.
> Who is "They"?
> Depends on who you ask....everyone from 1 lone commie to George Bush Sr.
> 
> ...



Since you are the one calling it a coup, who are you trying to say shot JFK for political take over? 

And I don't think there as EVER been a group/society/culture that has been mentally, spiritually or socially unified.  There will always and ever will be disparity of agreement.  I am sure it exists everywhere. Individually we can be conflicted on an issue, as a group we can have disparity of agreement.  It happens everywhere on every scale.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 25, 2004)

Some will say Johnson, Ford and Bush (and a few others).  Some will say the Mafia.
JFK was looking to get out of Vietnam.  After his death, we went in full bore.
Who benefited from an increased US military presence in Vietnam?
JFK was in negotiations with the USSR.  After his death, the Cold War got Colder.
Who benefited from heightened state of alert?

I don't have the answers.  I do however have thousands of questions.  The deaths of JFK, RFK and MLK among others have hundreds of unanswered questions revolving around mishandled evidence, tampered reports, etc.  Many of those involved then, are now either directly or indirectly in control of this country.  Hense my coup in the 60's comment.  Considering the number of enemies Bush Sr. made as director of the CIA, is it any wonder he had Dan "The Insurance Policy" Quayle as his VP?

We complain when China runs students over with tanks...but Kent State wasn't that long ago....and recent protests in NY and Washington prove still that government forces will violently clamp down on protestors and free speech in this country as well.

As to JFK...if you can't take the time to watch the footage (its run on History Channel, and is available on DVD), then I can't begin to summarize 20+ hours of evidence contrary to the official story.  My opinion is admitadly biased.  I offer my research so that one can make their own educated decisions on the truth.
 Here is 1 more link: http://www.jfk-info.com/index2.html

Back to Rome.... as I said...the corruption, issues, problems, etc are both different and the same.  We are, like them, the leading technological and military nation in the world.  We, like them, are being attacked on 2 fronts, internally and externally, and our eyes are not on the things needed to survive the assault intact.  How we as a nation act over the next few decades will determine if we follow their path, or continue to blaze our own.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 25, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> I don't have the answers.  I do however have thousands of questions.  The deaths of JFK, RFK and MLK among others have hundreds of unanswered questions revolving around mishandled evidence, tampered reports, etc.  Many of those involved then, are now either directly or indirectly in control of this country.
> 
> As to JFK...if you can't take the time to watch the footage (its run on History Channel, and is available on DVD), then I can't begin to summarize 20+ hours of evidence contrary to the official story.  My opinion is admitadly biased.  I offer my research so that one can make their own educated decisions on the truth.
> Here is 1 more link: http://www.jfk-info.com/index2.html
> ...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 25, 2004)

Coup

"coup - a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force"
Certainly the elimination of the head of state, combined with the issues of conspiracy as well as the rapid change in direction afterward can fit that definition.

The evidence is available in that video series, as well as at many sites on the net. To repost here, now would be redundant.


Again, the comparison to Rome exists in that assassination is just as much a part of our world today, as it was then.  Recent changes authorized by W now are reported to authorize the CIA to do just that...assassinate. The tacit approval of the US for the actions of Israel in their own illegal activities is only part of the current problem.
(Any other nation that assasinates, denies UN inspectors or Red Cross personel is censored.   In the case of Israel, -WE- take the heat...not right, IMHO)

As to what I'm doing about things....more than most, less than some.
- Raising public awareness of issues
- Researching and exploring alternative sollutions and historical comparisons.
- etc

What am I not doing?
- Calling for force of arms
- Calling for revolution
- sending my sword to my senator with sapuku instructions.
- etc.

Today, talk, public debate, and intelegent discussion are the way.
Not force of arms.
My kung fu just aint good enough to tackle a Main Battle Tank yet.... 

:asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 25, 2004)

BTW - I have been seriously considering a run for office....haven't decided if I'm -that- nuts yet.... 

I'll let y'all know if/when I do. 
(please make sure the tomatoes are ripe, not over ripe.....and bring salt please!)


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 25, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Coup
> 
> "coup - a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force"
> Certainly the elimination of the head of state, combined with the issues of conspiracy as well as the rapid change in direction afterward can fit that definition.
> ...



Definitions are lovely, but coup means that the violence was done by someone with the motive of assuming power, therefore you are dodging a direct answer to my question:  Who do YOU think did it if it was a Coup?  If you don't have a single suspect, who are your suspects?  Using terms like evidence and fact instead of data/information points to opinion.  "they say" comments aren't what I was asking, and "I don't have the answer" stuff is a dodge.

As far as office running, go for it.  I wouldn't throw tomatoes, I wouldn't even be on the grassy knoll , I would be sitting on my couch, with a cholesteral loaded WHopper with extra death and supersized Saterated heart disease fries thrown down my gullet, washing it down with a synthetics swollen caffiene drink, in my "wife beater" white tank top and my boxers flipping through the channels with my remote in hand.... bitching at the television but refusing to vote


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 25, 2004)

Who did it?
The shooter on the grassy knoll had ties with organized crime.  The shooting was done as a combined effort between members of the mafia, the VP's staff, the CIA and factions in Dallas itself.  I find the evidence from the video series "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" to be especially convincing, especially "The Guilty Men" which centers on LBJ.  "The Smoking Gun" also is an interesting look at the evidence and its tampering.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 25, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Who did it?
> The shooter on the grassy knoll had ties with organized crime.  The shooting was done as a combined effort between members of the mafia, the VP's staff, the CIA and factions in Dallas itself.  I find the evidence from the video series "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" to be especially convincing, especially "The Guilty Men" which centers on LBJ.  "The Smoking Gun" also is an interesting look at the evidence and its tampering.



I have said this before to put conspiracies into perspective:  How is it that on one hand gov. is SO inept that the budget can't be balanced, that military campaigns are failures, that social needs are ignored....as well as the fact that with a minimal cast of characters involved in the Clinton/Lewinski scandal it still got exposed, how on earth could a conspiracy of this JFK magnitude be kept under wraps for so long?  

It is very interesting to me that on one hand, gov. and officials are inepts and stupid at doing it right, yet at doing it wrong they are pros.  

So, you are saying that LBJ masterminded the JFK assasination - even though he aloud himself to flub the foriegn diplomacy and success of the vietnam war?

Please, if they were that good at coordinating and conspiring, they would be consumate politicians and our country would be a well oiled machine.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 25, 2004)

Just seems to me that this is all too closely linked with the current administration, which admittedly isnt leaving a great legacy....nobody seemed to care/espouse this @#$% back when Clinton was in office. Like Phil said, the pres. will change, the world will turn...all this seems tainted with political leanings, leading me to doubt any verifiable link to history "repeating itself". A la...Y2K, End of the World, Armageddon etc, we were closer to the "Fall" during the Civil War than we are now. So where on the "historical timeline" are we?...."There is no fate except that which we make for ourselves".


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 25, 2004)

I have a small list of interesting things about the Clintons and their associates...how a person who was handcuffed with their arms behind them, shot in the head and then run over by a train...his death was ruled a suicide.... (WTF??)  The Clintons aren't any better than the Bush's....  Its just that Bush's handlers are dragging things down, removing the good things that Billy did, while accellerating the harm and adding their own harm as well.

Like I said...its the next few -decades- that count...not a few meager years.

As to the conspiracy stuff....there is a difference between moral and political 'smarts'  JFK had numerous affairs yet that didn't matter as his political focus was the key points.  Why are LBJ's writings locked away for decades?  Why did a 'secret' party purchase and bury the recent documentary that pointed to massive internal conspiracies by LBJ and others to remove the Kenedys from power? (Yes, Robert too?)

Secrets do exist within the government.  To blindly believe that they told us the truth is IMO at best nieve and at worst flat out stupid.

Plots within plots, schemes within schemes.  Of course Sadamn had WMD...W has his daddys and Ronnies reciept books for proof. We won't get into the wasted resources and lives caused by Clintons forign blunders...but American blood was spilt in Africa and Europe on his call... They all seek to enrich themselves....why else do they spend millions for a 100,000 a year job? (Though I think it was raised to a mil. after slick-willy left the orface....)

The truth is we do hold the keys to the future....the question is...what don't we know, and who is hiding it?

The truth is out there Scully.....and it's not wearing a toga this time.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 25, 2004)

Just when were things "good"?? And when did they start going "bad"...All this is "politics"... been that way since the dawn of civ. Now Im not saying its hopeless, we should do what we can to improve things, but the "sky is falling" rant is unproductive and adgenda pushing through fear....


----------



## Tgace (Mar 25, 2004)

Ive read some political authors that make a closer comparison (IMHO) to the British Empire of Victoria than the Roman Empire...ours is much more an economic/cultural empire than it ever has been a military conquest one.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 25, 2004)

Now, returning to the idea that the US is a modern day Rome and heading down the same paths...here are some others opinions:

CON-From 2004 : http://noble.cbnoble.com/archives/001108.html

PRO-From 2001: http://www.nationalinvestor.com/Experts-McIntosh.htm
Same info, different link: http://www.gold-eagle.com/gold_digest_01/mcintosh052801pv.html

Another discussion on this same topic is found here:
http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/16585/99543


In short, I can see similarities, and differences.  Depending on what you are looking for, you will find the pro and the con.  Mostly, I found some good solid history and some good solid BS in those links.  

Hail Caesar, and pass the croutons!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 25, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Just when were things "good"?? And when did they start going "bad"...All this is "politics"... been that way since the dawn of civ. Now Im not saying its hopeless, *we should do what we can to improve things, but the "sky is falling" rant is unproductive and adgenda pushing through fear*....


I agree.  

When things were "good" depends on your own perspective.  I often hear older folks lamenting how it 'used to be'.  I also often hear teens and collage kids ranting about things that they know almost nothing about and haven't really looked into past a few soundbytes.  (All the War for Oil morons for example who missed the part where we'd have been better off attacking Canada not Iraq for oil....)

All I can say is that the American people need to wake up, open their eyes, do some serious research into the issues and then get out and vote and speak and march so that their voices are heard.  The silence is too often deafening.

Rome fell due in part to the apathy of its people and the abuses of their leaders.  The US is seeing record high apathy in its people, and the abuses of its leaders are being revealed.  That is the comparison.  The question is, is there still time to figure out the ills, cure them and move on?  I think so, but I'm one voice.  More will be needed, even those that disagree.


Side Tangent: Bush as Caeser?
http://www.counterpunch.org/grossman12192003.html


----------



## Tgace (Mar 25, 2004)

Was there a time in our history (that can be proven) where the population did "care", where everybody voted and was involved in the system? Or is it like the "crime rate" issue, where its debateable that crime has gone up, we just have more reports now where people didnt report in the past???


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 25, 2004)

Good points....that info I don't have.
What I have read is that of those eligible to vote, recent elections have been showing a decline in those who actually do.  At this time, the majority of the population is allowed to vote....where in the past gender and skin tone were against you.  In the past, people fought for the right...now, fewer and fewer seem to be using it.

Crime stats....thats a bit different....
Yes we have higher reported crime...we also have higher populations. So, is the percentages per 1000 population changing, or just the reports?  To really get the facts, we would have to cross refference alot more data than most stats groups care to deal it, I think.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 25, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Good points....that info I don't have.
> What I have read is that of those eligible to vote, recent elections have been showing a decline in those who actually do. At this time, the majority of the population is allowed to vote....where in the past gender and skin tone were against you. In the past, people fought for the right...now, fewer and fewer seem to be using it.


Dont misunderstand me..im not saying the US is perfect and lets all wave the flag and close our eyes....Im just trying to point out that our situation isnt any worse/or less political than it was during the revolution, the war of 1812, civil war (big close call there), WW's, 9/11 etc....to say we are following a linear trend like a Roman Empire Timeline....I cant accept it as anything more/or less than a model of human behavior, like Paul M. said, comparisons could probably be made (by somebody more learned than me) to any other political model.



> Crime stats....thats a bit different....
> Yes we have higher reported crime...we also have higher populations. So, is the percentages per 1000 population changing, or just the reports? To really get the facts, we would have to cross refference alot more data than most stats groups care to deal it, I think.


Lies...d#$%n lies and staistics . Theres a big gap between perceived crime and actual crime...abduction-murder is one of the rarest of crimes, but everybody freaks out when the media trots out an example and everybody acts like they are next. FBI stats state crime in general has been dropping with exception to some individual crimes. But our fascination (and the medias) with crime lead many to live in fear. Get the book "The Gift of Fear" by (spelling probably wrong) Gavin DeBecker...great book on the topic and a good source for self-defense related info like threat indicators and ways predators select and set-up victims.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 25, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> I also often hear teens and collage kids ranting about things that they know almost nothing about and haven't really looked into past a few soundbytes. (All the War for Oil morons for example who missed the part where we'd have been better off attacking Canada not Iraq for oil....)


Are they any different from the "hippy" generation of the 60's? That generation which is now in power? I question the attitude of "fight the power" it should be more "fix our nation" in tone IMHO....


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 25, 2004)

I have been away from my DSL for a few days ... and I have been trying to avoid jumping in on this conversation ...... but, I failed.

Just a quick point to make here



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Pax Americana is following in the footsteps of the ancient late Roman republic. Some of the information that supports this...
> 
> 3. Satallite nations set up militarily as part of the Empire. This was justified with the argument "we are showing them a better way of governing themselves...(analogous to democratizing) Has anyone ever read PNAC?
> 
> upnorthkyosa


This on tonight's CNN website.

*U.S. MAY HALVE FORCES IN GERMANY*
The Pentagon has drafted plans to withdraw as many as half of the 71,000 troops based in Germany as part of an extensive realignment of American military forces. Some defense analysts fear it goes too far.

Gee ... we have 71,000 soldiers based Germany, almost 60 years after conquering that nation ... hmmm .... 

Mike .. 

P.S. The President's salary in the original Constitution, I believe was $200,000.00 per year. It was recently raised to $400,000.00. And the reason they run is to get the babes ;-)


----------



## Tgace (Mar 25, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I have been away from my DSL for a few days ... and I have been trying to avoid jumping in on this conversation ...... but, I failed.
> 
> Just a quick point to make here
> 
> ...


Yeah but that was a result of WWII, not conquest ambitions. We stayed so long due to the Cold War and fear of Soviet expansion into Europe. I think its time to get out of Europe but inertia plays its part...


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 25, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Yeah but that was a result of WWII, not conquest ambitions. We stayed so long due to the Cold War and fear of Soviet expansion into Europe. I think its time to get out of Europe but inertia plays its part...


And somehow, you think that the 'forward deployment' of US Military personnel does not qualify as a 'satellite nation'?

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20021021&s=hartung

Mike


----------



## Tgace (Mar 25, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And somehow, you think that the 'forward deployment' of US Military personnel does not qualify as a 'satellite nation'?
> 
> http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20021021&s=hartung
> 
> Mike


Oh "The Nation" that unbiased font of "fair and balanced" information.

:rofl:


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 25, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Oh "The Nation" that unbiased font of "fair and balanced" information.


I didn't claim that they are fair and unbalanced. Can I assume that you did not read the link, because you bring your prejudices to the site? 

Oddly, this article was the 4th item on a Google search for 'US Military Forward Deployment'. For your research about our satelite nations here are the first three links.

http://www.discounttrainsonline.com/DML-Military-Models-Military-US-Forward-Deployment-Set-2/itemDML-71153.html

http://www.defendamerica.mil/

http://www.jda.go.jp/e/pab/8aramasi/def1361.htm

Oddly, I found these first three links did not provide nearly the information of the fourth link (although the 3rd link is pretty interesting). But, really, I wasn't digging for 'Liberal' information. I wanted to demonstrate that the United States Military is functioning as 'Satelite Nations', much like the Roman Empire. 

Hell, if we can't deploy in Japan, Germany, Qatar, etc ... we can deploy from one of our 11 Aircraft carrier battle groups. Tactically armed with 2 nuclear submarines each, multiple battleships, over 100 aircraft, including dozens of air-to-air and air-to-ground combat aircraft. 

Now .. guess how many equivilant battle groups our closest competitor can field ... .NONE ... that's right NONE .... and we gots eleven.  How 'bout them apples.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 25, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I didn't claim that they are fair and unbalanced. Can I assume that you did not read the link, because you bring your prejudices to the site?
> 
> Oddly, this article was the 4th item on a Google search for 'US Military Forward Deployment'. For your research about our satelite nations here are the first three links.
> 
> ...



Some of those forces in forward deployed countries, have contractual agreements with these countries/leases that allow us to stay there if the nations agree.  We do not "occupy/police" Japan, Okinawa, Germany.... We left the Phillipines because the gov. didn't want to renew.  And, from what my experience in the service showed me, our bases create more economic activity in the area than resistance (jobs, contracts, local goods for sale, touristy types of things for american troops with time and money to burn...).  These bases were intended to act as presence and deployment jump offs.  I think that, with the strength of the Euro-union, let them handle more of this type of thing themselves.

Countries like Kosovo, Bosnia and others we are really just a 'show of force' working independently regarding chain of command but in conjunction with the UN with VERY limited missions and VERY strict rules of engagement.  I spent more time escorting the band, payroll officers and chaplains than anything else.  All important in their way, but not the occupation/opression force that seems to be implied.  

As far as the new Mid East occupations, haven't been there, don't know how successful it is but the intention is to establish stability and rebuilding.   Bush and the Administration is suppose to be (qualifying because I don't know details) seeking support from other countries, but gee whiz there are very few who want to play .   Unfortunately, I fear that - in response to popularity pressures - we will either pull out before we have effectively accomplished stabilization so they can be self ruled or we will devote more effort to military operations than civil affairs coordination.  Discovery Times had an analyst, don't remember the name, who said that (paraphrased) if the US is going to use the mechanisms of empire to establish stability and with the purpose of handing that power back to the locals once stability is in place, it is fine - but failure will be very costly - both in human suffering and political impression.  I have to agree.  

Based on my experience with Bosnia, though, I still say that the most powerful force there was Brown and Root - the civilian contract company that hired local people to work on the base in the stores, coffee shops, food services, maintenance/janitorial services....  Locals got to interact on a human level with soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen to break down some of the assumptions on both sides.  It was funny to us that one of our regular interpreters was a Serb and the other was Croat/Bosniac.  They wouldn't work together, but they both loved us.

The employees made as much as 5/6 times the weekly salary that they could have on the local economy.  The total number of forces there were just enough to handle a brush fire, after that - along with the poor communication/coordination planning for a serious threat - those guys sitting in Ramstein, Germany sipping brew and enjoying legal prostitution would have to haul *** to the Bos to reinforce/bail us out.

As far as the Navy, yeah they are real good at bussing Marines/SEALS to where they need to go.  Air Force too - best military airline in the world.  When it absolutely has to be there on time..... Only joking, honestly I got along really well with all branches on an individual level.  I figured there is no point in pissing off the guy who might be handling my mail, cooking my food, driving the shuttle taking me somewhere or sticking a needle in my but for vaccinations  "Gee, Mrs. Clever your hair looks lovely today" "Well, Thank you Eddie Haskle"


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 26, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> The truth is out there Scully.....and it's not wearing a toga this time.


Morals are one of the things that a politician stands on in order to be elected, if they don't anty up and follow through, well they get voted out in four or so years.  Roman 'governers' and Caesars usually had a heck of a lot longer to warm the ruling seat than that - regardless of the morals.  

So your point about Conspiracies is that these political idiots got successfully voted into office - even though they are idiots.  Okay.  If they are idiots, they are idiots.  That would mean that they can't plan/implement/influence anything well, whether a conspiracy or a legitimate policy.  

Who are truly successful in school - students who devote the time to do the work and study and get things turned in on time, or student who spend more energy and time trying to pull one over on the system?  Generally it is the good students, with good work ethics.  Also, based on any persons time in a school, place of work or the military, you know that rumors fly, secrets get out and very few things that are 'hush hush' are kept that way.  My favorite line from the Harry Potter movies goes something like "of course the events of your battle with Valdemont are completely secret, so naturally the whole school knows" - 

the Pentagon/White house from the insiders is a world of courtesans and power brokers - as it is in any political structure.  Good juicy secrets never last long because someone, individually/party/group benefits from the informational release.  This sort of takes away the altruism of how much 'truth' there is in a 'conspiracy' that has had to lid blown off of it. So even the exposure of a political conspiracy could be the product of a counter conspiracy to expose the conspiracy.....Damn, where to they find time to write bills, vote on policies, run investigation committees...

Not suffering from naivete, I know that there are plans that I am not privie to, but that also happens everywhere.  Honestly, just because it is kept secret or plain old not shared with the general population doesn't automatically mean a cover up, conspiracy or evil plot.  It might just be better that way.  Ever keep anything from a family member because it wouldn't make the situation any better?  Some therapists even counsel that it might be selfishness in the worst form to 'share' the fact that you had an affair:  you feel better at the expense of your lover/wife/husbands pain.  If you truly are repentent, you will stop and never do it again.  Is that a conspiracy?

The truth isn't wearing high heals and ruffled collars either, or breast plates and chain mail, Kimonos and Katanas, Chinese purple/red silk, loin clothes and animal skins..... this type of thing has been happening in every civilization - anywhere that people are involved.  If there were someone learned enough to be able to do it, a parallel could be made to the empirial courts of China and Japan as well.  China's engineering campaigns rivaled/paralleled the Roman wall campaigns under Hadrian.  The Road system, military training, state education.... all could be relatively compared to Rome.  The Communist over throw of that 'empire' doesn't mean that they, like the USSR, threw away the tactics of politics that were Roman like in mechanism and style.  Both China and Russian empire truly occupied lands and planted the national flag there - like the Romans.

The Nazi controlled Germany under Hitler during WWII was called the third Reich for a reason, along with all the visually obviously Roman trappings and ceramonial practices.  Even the formal education of the Hitler Youth was based on the same indoctrinal policies used in Rome - sound body and mind.  Physical/competitive endeavors raise the standard of the individual and therefore the quality of the state by the foundation of its youth.  Shooting, track and field, boxing, field trips to the corners of the 'empire',... all were straight steals from the Roman Empirial machine.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 26, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Some of those forces in forward deployed countries, have contractual agreements with these countries/leases that allow us to stay there if the nations agree. We do not "occupy/police" Japan, Okinawa, Germany.... We left the Phillipines because the gov. didn't want to renew. And, from what my experience in the service showed me, our bases create more economic activity in the area than resistance (jobs, contracts, local goods for sale, touristy types of things for american troops with time and money to burn...). These bases were intended to act as presence and deployment jump offs. I think that, with the strength of the Euro-union, let them handle more of this type of thing themselves.
> 
> Countries like Kosovo, Bosnia and others we are really just a 'show of force' working independently regarding chain of command but in conjunction with the UN with VERY limited missions and VERY strict rules of engagement. I spent more time escorting the band, payroll officers and chaplains than anything else. All important in their way, but not the occupation/opression force that seems to be implied.
> 
> ...


 
So, to paraphrase you ... 

If it looks like a forward deployment satellite nation . . . 
and it smells like a forward deployment satellite nation . . . 
and it tastes like a foward deployment satellite nation . ..
*it ain't necessarily* a forward deployment satellite nation 
. . .and besides, *It's Good For Them and We Know Better*.

Right? 

Please read a little humor ... a little sarcasm ... and quite a bit of truth into that response. - Mike


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 26, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> So, to paraphrase you ...
> 
> If it looks like a forward deployment satellite nation . . .
> and it smells like a forward deployment satellite nation . . .
> ...



Read humor, pouted at the sarcasm (I am delicate - like a flower ) raised an eyebrow (Spock style - been practicing it for a while. I love the Bionic Man!)and thought about it.  No, don't agree with your paraphrasing, after being deployed to Okinawa, supporting Operation Team Spirit with ROK military, I can tell you that Okinawa/Japan/South Korea were/are not 'satellite nations' of the US.  Phillipines started out that way in the 1800's/early 1900's, but is no longer supporting US bases - Why? Because we honored the lease. I wouldn't ever imagine Rome tolerating such a thing.  Bosnia, quite honestly was more influenced by euro contact than US (used the German Deutchemark and in the process of converting to a Bosnian Deutchemark....eventually adopting the Euro-dollar) and the country was broken up into zones of responsibility for stability (UN nations taking each area for command and control of operations.) other than that, we (all forces in the country) did very little to directly control day to day activity.  The US sector, at least, had a policy of base restriction for troops.  The local gov. handled day to day and major decision making independent of US approval.  The UN on the other hand.... I can't wait to see the BMW/Mercedes factory that is built with the idea of stimulating the local economy (read, cheap labor/land for lower production costs/larger profits for German based business.).

We weren't there, because we 'knew better', consider how much of technology has been foriegn imports. And the position of both countries in these lease agreements reverses the power roles that you are implying.  We are leasing from them.  Rome:  Step into a country and tell them we are here regardless of what you really want.  The original forward bases may have been established post WWII, but the current relationship/agreement is much more current and updated.  Before anyone tries the "well what would you have known you were just a Marine/Soldier/Sailor/Airmen.  You couldn't possibly have known what the TRUE intentions were", troops are smarter than people give them credit for - and we talk to each other: "enough unclass material can reveal classified intentions" was the thought of the day on active duty.  We saw a lot of unclass info and knew more than they told us.  Case in point, my MP unit 'knew' through the rumor mill that we would be deployed to Bosnia for over a year before we actually got the official notice.

By the very nature of the operations, pace of operations, quantity, interactions with locals.... we weren't there 'occupying' the nation for domination or to control trade.  Rome had DOMINION over these satellite nations.  Rome dictated market prices, taxation, overwatched local government with 'prefects/governors' and so on.  They told the local government they could stay in charge, because Rome said they could.  Not what was happening.

Now I will say that the American/Western Culture was a huge influence in both places.  But it was/is an ecclectic of influences both US/Euro.  American wealth/music (rap, hip hop...), Euro fashions/style, 'American Pizza', percieved American Freedom (notice I said percieved), Euro cars/motorcycles... a real hodge podge.  I think that trade/market activities with these countries have created more influence than any military presence.  Like Rome, western/American culture has become the 'thing' to be in many countries - but that doesn't make them Political/Dominion Satellites.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 26, 2004)

Why do these mysterious words...Korea, Subic Bay, Vietnam, Diego Garcia, Hawaii, Kuwait, Guam, Panama, Chile...float into my mind here?


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 26, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Why do these mysterious words...Korea, Subic Bay, Vietnam, Diego Garcia, Hawaii, Kuwait, Guam, Panama, Chile...float into my mind here?



Because you're hearing the voices of dead Romans calling on you to be the prophet for the new age to undo the wrongs that put them in the grave....you see dead people

Again, I don't remember the Roman Empire releasing Dominion over territories.  Loosing control because of lack of finances or manpower yes, thus the power vacuum that lead to the medieval time period, misnamed the Dark Ages, but not the pulling out of the country when the limited time agreed upon ends. Roman rule was eternal or until it fell.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 26, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Because you're hearing the voices of dead Romans calling on you to be the prophet for the new age to undo the wrongs that put them in the grave....you see dead people


Now that is just plain funny.... :uhyeah: ... I didn't think you had it in you. Way to Go.

Mike


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 26, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Now that is just plain funny.... :uhyeah: ... I didn't think you had it in you. Way to Go.
> 
> Mike



I'm like an onion, I have many layers, they all make you cry though


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 26, 2004)

Hey, lets not pick on Hawaii here...

The US conquered them fair and square.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 27, 2004)

Actually,
King Kamehameha (SP?) conquered...I mean unified the Island a long time ago.  After that missionaries went there, from Brit/Amer/Euro... to save the savages a long time ago.  His successors made deals with Foriegners.  Even the Hawaiian flag was designed to be a calling card of cooperation between Hawaii and their trade allies:  US, Brit, and I think France.  They WANTED to be 'invaded', or at least the ruling class.  It, again, was more along the lines of the British Trade model than a Roman model.  Doesn't make it any more right or wrong.  But, there is dirt in any political/business dealings at any level on all sides, isn't that right?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 27, 2004)

No. US conquest for business reasons.

http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/archive/arc10.htm


President Clinton signes Public Law 103-150, the "Apology Resolution" to Native Hawaiians, on November 23, 1993.
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/publawsum.html

See also:
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/acknowledges.html

also this:


> 1898
> Hawaii
> In 1893, American sugar farmers staged a coup to overthrow the Hawaiian monarchy. Armed U.S. Marines landed on Honolulu, and Queen Lydia Liliuokalani was imprisoned in her own palace and pressured to renounce all claims to the throne. John L. Stevens, the U.S. minister to Hawaii, was eager to annex Hawaii and gave immediate recognition to the farmers' "provisional government."
> 
> ...


 from http://boxer.senate.gov/apa/timeline.html Sen. Boxer of California's website.

A search on Google for "clinton apology hawaii" (no quotes) will bring up 6,000+ hits on the subject of the US's illegal anexation of Hawaii.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 27, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> No. US conquest for business reasons.
> 
> http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/archive/arc10.htm
> 
> ...



Again, following the British/Dutch/Spanish trading empires more than the Roman Empirial model.  How long were we/other foreign nations trading with the Hawaiians before this incident?  What type of negotiation agreements were in place prior to this incident.  I never said it was 'better' or more 'moral' just more a trade empire model than a Roman empire model.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 27, 2004)

If we were looking for territory, we would probably own North America, Central-South America by now...And Germany and France would have had no choice but to do what we told them during the Iraq invasion (due to our satellite nations being so close by), Lybian bombing during the 80's etc. What would the Romans have done to nations that thwarted them???


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 29, 2004)

Sort of tangental but:

Interesting movie in class today about the burning of rome:

One theory:  Nero started the fire to over rule the Aristocracies resistance to his construction plans to leave his architectural stamp on Rome.

Two theory:  Early Christian guerillas started the fire in rebellion (a la 9/11, world trade center attack)

Three theory:  Unfortunate accidental consequence of the constant fire hazard of open flame, flammable materiels and flammabe products in shops hear the Circus Maximus.

The historical scholar/archeo/anthro... the stable of 'ologists' each 'believed' a different theory.  All looked at the same evidence/records (Roman historian of the time, and an aristocrat, Tacitus' texts combined with dig evidence, firematic experiments in controlled burning labs....) with different interps


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 29, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> "I am certainly no expert on Roman history. In fact, I have read a total of three books on the subject and have had one college class - hardly enough to be considered a savant. Still, I sense that there are some important lessons that history can teach us in these days."
> 
> History is just there, good bad or otherwise.  If you are referring to usefulness, you have to establish what type of goal or task is being accomplished.  You have to decide what your tool box of ideas will be filled with, and what type of tool history will be in this overview.
> 
> I don't think that human political development will ever follow a gentle curve of cultural evolution to perfection - because people have not accomplished this in anything.  The only category we, as a race, could claim any 'advancement in is technology - i.e. tools.  But, as the users of those tools -both mental/physical- humans on a global scale have proven to be motivated by altruistic as well as greedy desires - whether Roman or Hun, Goth or Japanese.



Wow, this conversation has really gone on well!  Thanks Bob for all of the cool information.  Thanks everyone for the counterpoints also.

Paul M - regarding your point about my motivations, I do have a bias.  I believe that I have a grasp on many of the matters of this world, allowing me to form opinions regarding them - some of them are very strong indeed!  Yet, I would not say that I am as blind as you fear.  My opinions evolve in the face of new information.  I would say that have a nasty prediliction for re-evaluating what I believe.  This is done in order to meet my goal of being more deductive - more scientific.  In the end, I find paradoxes amusing and education - a hallmark of a relativist.  

A warning though, I am very idealistic.  This is because I have lots of faith in people.  It's the loss of idealism that you should be worried about.  Those are the people who have chosen apathy.

Regarding your point about the usage of history...I see a bit of 1984 in this.  I can picture Winston Smith sitting at his desk evaluating his tools and cutting out the pieces Big Brother has commanded.  Down the memory hole it goes.  "If you are referring to usefulness, you have to establish what type of goal or task is being accomplished" isn't that just a conscious decision to choose your bias?  Is there any way to be objective when using history to predict future events?  In biology, we feel like we can do this.  Except we have billions of years to look back on and many more patterns to compare...

Which brings me to my next point, evolution.  Many have brought up the point that (all) civilization follows a curve of rise and fall.  In a way this is like many other collective organisms striving for the same resources.  Populations dominate and fall to the way side.  As homo sapians, are we doomed to forever repeat this pattern until we go down into the deep darkness of extinction?  Or is it possible for us to learn from our history and elicit a new direction?  Can we bring about a behavioral punctuated equilibria on the level of the industrial revolution in regard to linking globalism with humanism?

Some other points regarding the Roman Empire

1.  Many of the comparisons that people have been making have been confused.  There are two stages of the empire that are being reffered to (the Republic and the Imperium) and only one has many of the comparisons, in my opinion.  The times of the Roman Republic contain most of the parables that are relevant to recent events.  The Imperium has some relevance, but is far overshadowed by the relevance of Republican times.
2.  The whole concept of term limits and checks and balances is a Roman concept.  We stole the idea from them.  We also stole (or the Oligarchs specifically planned for) the ways around them.  Our constitution is a mirror in many ways to the Roman Constitution and in that way it sets us apart from other civilizations that have been bandied about.  This is why comparison to the Roman Empire is so poignant.
3.  The Roman Empire, in the days of the Republic, was not just a militarily dominated affair.  In Greece and Egypt, they used trade and economics to dominate until their militaries grew to the point where the undermined governments were easily supplanted.  In other situations, the Romans were invited by the people of the land to invade.  For instance, in Spain, the people lived under ruthless kings who enslaved the populace.  The Romans promised to make them citizens and give them rights they never had.  Sometimes they were given complete autonomy afterward (Even with their own people in charge!)...this is, of course, after a Roman Style government was installed and economic/military alliances were established.  Sound familiar?
4.  The deaths of Gaius and Tiberius Gracchus and the times associated with those events, are reminiscent of the coup in which Bob refferred.  When reading the history of those days, sometimes the parallels are breathtaking...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 29, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> If we were looking for territory, we would probably own North America, Central-South America by now...And Germany and France would have had no choice but to do what we told them during the Iraq invasion (due to our satellite nations being so close by), Lybian bombing during the 80's etc. What would the Romans have done to nations that thwarted them???



Aye, what really has happened?  That is the question.  Look at the ways in which we retaliate and look at the ways in which the Romans retaliated after the 1st Punic War?  Carthage was too powerful militarily to defeat, so other tactics needed to be used in order to establish dominance.  

Also, the concept of a cohesive empire with sattalite nations under ruthless control is not what happened in Roman times.  People have a need of freedom and the more an empire attempts to control them, the more they rebel.  Look at the empires that have ruthlessly suppressed their people and look at how long they lasted (Russia, Germany, Tokugawa Japan, and post Meiji Japan).  

On the other hand, look at the Roman Empire, they did not survive so long by literally forcing their people into rebellion.  They let them live under the rule of their own people.  They shaped (the conquered) societies into mirrors of their own.  In many cases, the common people of "satallite nations" hardly knew they were under "Roman Rule".

The people who did know that they were under "Roman Rule" were compensated duly.  When one of them rebelled, a "coalition of the willing" was formed to deal with the "ruthless dictator".  I'm not saying that Saddam wasn't a bad guy with this allusion, I'm just saying that we didn't really care about that stuff until he stopped doing what we told him.  

Can anyone think of other examples where this principle of Pax Romana/Pax Americana has been seen in action?

upnorthkyosa


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 29, 2004)

Whether Republic or Imperius, Rome was an Empire - the same way that England was whether there was only a King/Queen or a Queen/King with a Parliment....President is NOT the same as a Caesar because - unlike your reference to terms applying to Senators, this applies to the President.  Direct relative comparison.

Rome used trade as well as military might yes, but they established dominion over the territory and dictated the market/taxes....

And the main point that is continuously side stepped is the idea that the basic values of the citizenry in each culture is VERY different.  That is the most important difference as far as I am concerned.  The government doesn't sponsor organized/professional sports.  The hockey arenas, football stadiums....are privately sponsored.  The violence is limited and not dictated by the President residing over life and death.  It would not be tolerated because the morallity and view of torture and abuse is different than in Rome.

The closest sport comparison I can think of is boxing to gladitorial games and look at all the regulations that dictate 'safe' boxing now.  A boxer has a referee decide if the fight will go on or not.  They are not slaves/prisoners/POW's thrown into the ring for the entertainment of the POTUS - who decides whether one will have to live or die.  We can't even fathom a death penalty being federalized.  The buck has been passed down to the states - or decentralized depending on your opinion.  

The mob LOVED the games.  They cheered the blood and the death - not the likelihood of it or the risk of it but the inevitable PRESENCE of it.  When an athlete is injured, the crowd murmurs and worries over him/her.  When they can even partially get themselves off the field we cheer at his chance at recovery.  The mob would boo that as weakness.  They cheered the dead eye stare into the face of death - but they didn't say "No, he demostrated courage - even for a slave/prisoner/barbarian - spare him/her!" on a regular basis.

That basic difference in the values of those who will be voting representation into office will create the biggest difference between the two.  The mechanisms can be similar, but that doesn't make one the other.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 29, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> As far as 1984, nah.  Meladramatic, political allagory.  I recognize the significant message and warning, but the two demensionality of characters only supports the theme, doesn't speak to the complicated nature of human dynamics.  Besides which, it - like animal farm was more about the machine of politics and both have an anti-communist bend to them.  1984 and China/former USSR/East Berlin sure.  Relative to the USA, don't see it as strongly - unless I squint really hard.



Oh! Oh! This could be a new thread!  Think about the concept of corporate totalitarianism, then you don't have to squint so hard...


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 29, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Wasn't the Roman Empire, whether Republic or Imperius, still an empire because it took over lands and territories based on trade/military might?  In both cases, the Romans were the ones who dictated trade/tax/travel in these territories.



People in territories in the Republic time were granted citizenship in many cases.  The Romans assimilated conquered people and "taught them a better way of life".  So, trade/tax/travel was controlled by the people who lived there, rather then a central nexus located in Rome itself.  In the Imperium, this changed, depending on the Emperor in power.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 29, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Oh! Oh! This could be a new thread!  Think about the concept of corporate totalitarianism, then you don't have to squint so hard...



It's fiction.  "That's all I have to say about thayat"


----------



## Tgace (Mar 29, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Paul M - regarding your point about my motivations, I do have a bias. I believe that I have a grasp on many of the matters of this world, allowing me to form opinions regarding them - some of them are very strong indeed! Yet, I would not say that I am as blind as you fear. My opinions evolve in the face of new information. I would say that have a nasty prediliction for re-evaluating what I believe. This is done in order to meet my goal of being more deductive - more scientific. In the end, I find paradoxes amusing and education - a hallmark of a relativist.


You opinions evolve...but all I see is the same stuff. I think you just take the information and "make it fit" into your viewpoint. See the thread...

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13647

and refer to the cog. diss. stuff. We all do it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 30, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> You opinions evolve...but all I see is the same stuff. I think you just take the information and "make it fit" into your viewpoint. See the thread...
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13647
> 
> and refer to the cog. diss. stuff. We all do it.



Perhaps, then again, you have only known me a short period of time.  I apologize if its not mecurical enough for you...the process is in many ways like throwing a stone into a lake.  Does the level of the water change when one rock is thrown into it?  It all depends on the size of the rock and the size of the lake.  So, I guess its all about trusting my word until your sample size increases...

How about we talk about the topic more and less about my "agenda". 

I think this is a cool topic!


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 1, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Perhaps, then again, you have only known me a short period of time.  I apologize if its not mecurical enough for you...the process is in many ways like throwing a stone into a lake.  Does the level of the water change when one rock is thrown into it?  It all depends on the size of the rock and the size of the lake.  So, I guess its all about trusting my word until your sample size increases...
> 
> How about we talk about the topic more and less about my "agenda".
> 
> I think this is a cool topic!



But if the lake is frozen solid, the rock will not even penetrate the surface 

It is hard to separate agenda with topic when you counter every disagreeing point with one of two responses:  you don't know what you are talking about or my interpretation of the Roman business practices are more right.

It is a 'birds of a feather' set up so it will only lead to a one way discussion.  Have fun.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 1, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> But if the lake is frozen solid, the rock will not even penetrate the surface
> 
> It is hard to separate agenda with topic when you counter every disagreeing point with one of two responses:  you don't know what you are talking about or my interpretation of the Roman business practices are more right.
> 
> It is a 'birds of a feather' set up so it will only lead to a one way discussion.  Have fun.



The specific heat of water and the density anomaly it undergoes when it changes phase prevents large bodies from freezing solid.  With that being said, even that ice can be broken.  Think truck in late spring...

Strawman.  

My arguments have been crafted a little better then that.  How about a little credit?  Also, if I have superior knowledge on a subject and you make a point using a misconception, can we continue the discussion without first attempting to correct what you know about the facts?

If you are resistant to this correction and choose instead to accept the misconception, are you the one guilty of having a "close mind?"

Any classification argument has those who wish to lump and those who wish to split.  This discussion is not possible unless you know the characteristics that are being used.

upnorthkyosa


----------

