Sauce for the goose

The man is an idiot.

http://rense.com/1.imagesH/dronesplashj.jpg

The American people are, by and large,idiots.

The problem is that we think the world was made strictly for us, and what happens to peoples (non humans of course, all of them) elsewhere is just fine as long as it doesn't happen here. Can you imagine our response if one missile landed in the USA? Yet we urge Israel to absorb thousands of missile strikes annually without retaliation. We also rain down our own destruction from above at will all over pretty much all of the middle east (except for Saudi Arabia, where all of the terrorists who burned us actually came from) without batting an eye or thinking that we are breeding more and more seething hate with all of the killing (for peace?) we do.

We are clearly the Romans of our time, and, just as with the Romans, the barbarians (anyone who is not a Roman citizen) are beginning to chip away at our imperial dominance over them, and just like the Romans our response is ever more brutality in return. Will we succeed forever in killing for peace whereas the Romans ultimately failed miserably at this?

The Roman Empire lasted 500 years (1500 if you count the Eastern Empire)...we're barely at 230 years. And I'm being nice by not counting Rome's period as a Republic into that comparison....tack on another 500 years of dominance there if you feel like adding it.

I think they're still ahead for the foreseeable future.

Davian wrote:The Roman Empire lasted 500 years (1500 if you count the Eastern Empire)...we're barely at 230 years. And I'm being nice by not counting Rome's period as a Republic into that comparison....tack on another 500 years of dominance there if you feel like adding it.

I think they're still ahead for the foreseeable future.

So should I take from this that you feel it is our manifest destiny to kill at will in the name of our superiority (moral, intellectual, ethical, or otherwise), so long as we should be able to get away with it for another 500 to 1000 years? What was to be the 1000 year Reich was built upon similar goals and motives.

lsayre wrote:

Davian wrote:The Roman Empire lasted 500 years (1500 if you count the Eastern Empire)...we're barely at 230 years. And I'm being nice by not counting Rome's period as a Republic into that comparison....tack on another 500 years of dominance there if you feel like adding it.

I think they're still ahead for the foreseeable future.

So should I take from this that you feel it is our manifest destiny to kill at will in the name of our superiority (moral, intellectual, ethical, or otherwise), so long as we should be able to get away with it for another 500 to 1000 years? What was to be the 1000 year Reich was built upon similar goals and motives.

I believe pretty much the complete opposite. I was just challenging the idea that that strategy "failed miserably" for Rome. It worked quite well for nearly 2000 years overall.

That doesnt make it a good or just strategy by any means.

So should we take a neutral stance abroad and defend our borders with a vengeance when required, or continue to be imperialistic, with the knowledge that it worked for millenia for the Romans? Are you getting to a serious point, or just pouncing upon and refuting a perceived trivial flaw in my original contention?

lsayre wrote:So should we take a neutral stance abroad and defend our borders with a vengeance when required, or continue to be imperialistic, with the knowledge that it worked for millenia for the Romans? Are you getting to a serious point, or just pouncing upon and refuting a perceived trivial flaw in my original contention?

I think we need to strike a balance between complete isolationism and defending our interests abroad.

Davian wrote:

lsayre wrote:So should we take a neutral stance abroad and defend our borders with a vengeance when required, or continue to be imperialistic, with the knowledge that it worked for millenia for the Romans? Are you getting to a serious point, or just pouncing upon and refuting a perceived trivial flaw in my original contention?

I think we need to strike a balance between complete isolationism and defending our interests abroad.

Do any other countries have interests abroad? Are they allowed to defend them? Do their interests bump up against ours?

jpete wrote:

Davian wrote:

lsayre wrote:So should we take a neutral stance abroad and defend our borders with a vengeance when required, or continue to be imperialistic, with the knowledge that it worked for millenia for the Romans? Are you getting to a serious point, or just pouncing upon and refuting a perceived trivial flaw in my original contention?

I think we need to strike a balance between complete isolationism and defending our interests abroad.

Do any other countries have interests abroad? Are they allowed to defend them? Do their interests bump up against ours?

Of course they do...and if they are allies, we might even give a damn about said interests.

Davian wrote:
Of course they do...and if they are allies, we might even give a damn about said interests.

So it's perpetual war then?

jpete wrote:

Davian wrote:
Of course they do...and if they are allies, we might even give a damn about said interests.

So it's perpetual war then?

Why does it have to be perpetual war? There are other ways to promote ones interest outside of war. We havent been constatnly at war as a nation and yet we've defended our interests just fine.

Davian wrote:We havent been constatnly at war as a nation and yet we've defended our interests just fine.

Look closer.

I don't think isolationism is possible in today's world.

If jackass in chief would promote energy independence it would help a lot though.

franco b wrote:I don't think isolationism is possible in today's world.

If jackass in chief would promote energy independence it would help a lot though.

Nor is isolationism desirable for a healthy economy.

People that throw the term around like that are just trying to shut down any discussion.