PDA

View Full Version : The US Empire Is Crumbling



Pages : [1] 2

Ethereal
03-22-2018, 12:03 PM
The US is an empire. And every empire in history has undergone a period of expansion, stasis, decline and then implosion.

We are currently in the period of decline.

It's an empire we inherited from European powers throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Indeed, one could argue that Europe itself is a protectorate of the US empire.

The internal divisions and political strife, the insurmountable debt, the increasing centralization of power in government, the unchecked corruption and secrecy, the endless warfare, are all symptoms of the decline of empire.

Americans often feel like there are enemies and adversaries everywhere, which is why they mount no serious objections to profligate spending on the military. Yet what they perceive to be enemies and adversaries are really just countries trying to assert their independence from the US empire. Countries like Russia, Iran, and North Korea are no real threat to America. They have no intention of attacking our country or violating our trade and travel rights around the world.

Of course, virtually everyone who reads this will disagree with it in some way. But that's another symptom of imperial decline: Mass denial. The idea of the "exceptional" and "indispensable" nation (could anything be more overtly imperial?) is simply too ingrained in the minds of Americans to accept the fact that their prestige and greatness is waning. The British and the Romans were possessed of similar delusions near the ends of their great empires.

This isn't to say the US empire is going to implode anytime soon. More than likely, it will continue to limp along for at least a few more decades before the signs of its inevitable implosion really start to manifest themselves. However, what seems exceedingly clear (to me, at least) is that the empire has entered the unmistakable period of decline.

Ethereal
03-22-2018, 12:07 PM
The rise and fall of the Roman empire in terms of its territorial extent:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Roman_Empire_map.gif

Captdon
03-22-2018, 01:03 PM
The US is an empire. And every empire in history has undergone a period of expansion, stasis, decline and then implosion.

We are currently in the period of decline.

It's an empire we inherited from European powers throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Indeed, one could argue that Europe itself is a protectorate of the US empire.

The internal divisions and political strife, the insurmountable debt, the increasing centralization of power in government, the unchecked corruption and secrecy, the endless warfare, are all symptoms of the decline of empire.

Americans often feel like there are enemies and adversaries everywhere, which is why they mount no serious objections to profligate spending on the military. Yet what they perceive to be enemies and adversaries are really just countries trying to assert their independence from the US empire. Countries like Russia, Iran, and North Korea are no real threat to America. They have no intention of attacking our country or violating our trade and travel rights around the world.

Of course, virtually everyone who reads this will disagree with it in some way. But that's another symptom of imperial decline: Mass denial. The idea of the "exceptional" and "indispensable" nation (could anything be more overtly imperial?) is simply too ingrained in the minds of Americans to accept the fact that their prestige and greatness is waning. The British and the Romans were possessed of similar delusions near the ends of their great empires.

This isn't to say the US empire is going to implode anytime soon. More than likely, it will continue to limp along for at least a few more decades before the signs of its inevitable implosion really start to manifest themselves. However, what seems exceedingly clear (to me, at least) is that the empire has entered the unmistakable period of decline.

In other words, only you have it right. Must be awfully lonely up on the top of Mt.Zion.

The Xl
03-22-2018, 01:03 PM
It will fall at this rate. The only way to save it is to identify the men behind the shadows and get them out of power.

jimmyz
03-22-2018, 01:10 PM
Unlike the British and Romans the US hasn't occupied foreign lands and repressed other people. Have we temporarily occupied countries in the course of our wars? Sure. But our goals have never been to take over their lands for the building of an "empire". We prefer building an economic empire, which we have. You might say that fact has repressed or dominated foreigners if you wish.

I am bullish on the United States of America going forward.

Ethereal
03-22-2018, 01:37 PM
In other words, only you have it right. Must be awfully lonely up on the top of Mt.Zion.
I'm not the only one who thinks this. But I am in the minority. Still, that does not mean I am wrong.

Ethereal
03-22-2018, 01:38 PM
It will fall at this rate. The only way to save it is to identify the men behind the shadows and get them out of power.

I think that only addresses the symptoms. The system itself is what is flawed. You would remove one set of parasites only to have another replace them.

Ethereal
03-22-2018, 01:45 PM
Unlike the British and Romans the US hasn't occupied foreign lands and repressed other people. Have we temporarily occupied countries in the course of our wars? Sure. But our goals have never been to take over their lands for the building of an "empire". We prefer building an economic empire, which we have. You might say that fact has repressed or dominated foreigners if you wish.

It has repressed and dominated them. And this is why the US has so many enemies and adversaries. The only people who do not see this are Americans.


I am bullish on the United States of America going forward.

With $21 trillion in debt, who wouldn't be?

texan
03-22-2018, 01:59 PM
I'm not the only one who thinks this. But I am in the minority. Still, that does not mean I am wrong.
I am going to give a big disagree here.

Big difference from the Roman Empire. We are not trying to take land and expand etc. Fortunately for us we are to big to fail. We also have the ability to correct or go through forced corrections. Progression makes people uncomfortable. It comes way to quick sometimes. We also hit peaks and valleys. This is not the first rodeo that predicted we are failing. Just look back in history to the depression and other times. They said the same thing when Yimmy Carter ran things.

We may go through a correction, but we are not going to "fail." There is no money to be made by the predictors if there isn't some kind of problem to report. Things are great doesn't sell papers unfortunately. We are not the Roman Empire.

jimmyz
03-22-2018, 02:03 PM
It has repressed and dominated them. And this is why the US has so many enemies and adversaries. The only people who do not see this are Americans.



What is your definition of "oppressed and dominated"?

The USA hasn't had real "enemies" since 1945.

Ransom
03-22-2018, 02:12 PM
The US is an empire. And every empire in history has undergone a period of expansion, stasis, decline and then implosion.

We are currently in the period of decline.

It's an empire we inherited from European powers throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Indeed, one could argue that Europe itself is a protectorate of the US empire.

The internal divisions and political strife, the insurmountable debt, the increasing centralization of power in government, the unchecked corruption and secrecy, the endless warfare, are all symptoms of the decline of empire.

Americans often feel like there are enemies and adversaries everywhere, which is why they mount no serious objections to profligate spending on the military. Yet what they perceive to be enemies and adversaries are really just countries trying to assert their independence from the US empire. Countries like Russia, Iran, and North Korea are no real threat to America. They have no intention of attacking our country or violating our trade and travel rights around the world.

Of course, virtually everyone who reads this will disagree with it in some way. But that's another symptom of imperial decline: Mass denial. The idea of the "exceptional" and "indispensable" nation (could anything be more overtly imperial?) is simply too ingrained in the minds of Americans to accept the fact that their prestige and greatness is waning. The British and the Romans were possessed of similar delusions near the ends of their great empires.

This isn't to say the US empire is going to implode anytime soon. More than likely, it will continue to limp along for at least a few more decades before the signs of its inevitable implosion really start to manifest themselves. However, what seems exceedingly clear (to me, at least) is that the empire has entered the unmistakable period of decline.

I would like you to read a book titled Undaunted Courage. I often submit this book as an excellent look into centuries ago America, the struggles of life, the disease, poverty, lack of education.....and then the credible journey of imperialism that open the American West.

It has been known for quite some time our history isn't your strong suit, Ethereal. Today, we are hardly in decline, we face less threat and strife than at any time in our history. Because you don't know that, you make ridiculous thread starts like this. You'll be insulting and calling me names next inyour infamous deflection techniques, however, the content you wrote there isn't correct. And becoming educated on our history would prove that.

The Xl
03-22-2018, 02:16 PM
I think that only addresses the symptoms. The system itself is what is flawed. You would remove one set of parasites only to have another replace them.

That's true, it would probably only save it for a generation or two.

MisterVeritis
03-22-2018, 02:16 PM
It has been known for quite some time our history isn't your strong suit, Ethereal. Today, we are hardly in decline, we face less threat and strife than at any time in our history. Because you don't know that, you make ridiculous thread starts like this. You'll be insulting and calling me names next in your infamous deflection techniques, however, the content you wrote there isn't correct. And becoming educated on our history would prove that.
The primary threat we face is from our own government. We have a government that is unconstitutionally centralizing power and authority over every facet of our lives. While I love the bread and circuses and much as the next guy it is clear we are no longer a Constitutional Republic. We have already failed.

What comes next?

Ransom
03-22-2018, 02:17 PM
What is your definition of "oppressed and dominated"?

The USA hasn't had real "enemies" since 1945.

Getting ready for a May trip to Chancellorsville, reading Sear's book on that Civil War Battle. And the state of this Union in 1863. Chilling.

Move decades ahead and we've over 100,000 dead from world wars. Diseases like polio, the measles, and cholera take lives by the millions. I'm always taken by facts learned from that book I submitted to Ethereal. In the day of Lewis and Clark...it wasn't known how malaria was spread. The mosquito by the trillions...wracked the expedition members, everyone of them crossing the continent...with severe fevers and illnesses, all of them wrecked from that disease...that they didn't even know was hosted from the mosquito. Today's health, today's wealth....we take for granted. Ethereal is a take it all for granted student.

Ransom
03-22-2018, 02:19 PM
The primary threat we face is from our own government. We have a government that is unconstitutionally centralizing power and authority over every facet of our lives. While I love the bread and circuses and much as the next guy it is clear we are no longer a Constitutional Republic. We have already failed.

What comes next?

I cannot argue against government oppression. That might be a more focused conversation. To claim the entire empire is in decline.....I'm not sure that's accurate given our history of such a messy democracy. We've had a Vietnam war. We've survived Barack Obama. We've got a fairly strong chin.

Ethereal
03-22-2018, 02:29 PM
I am going to give a big disagree here.

Big difference from the Roman Empire. We are not trying to take land and expand etc. Fortunately for us we are to big to fail. We also have the ability to correct or go through forced corrections. Progression makes people uncomfortable. It comes way to quick sometimes. We also hit peaks and valleys. This is not the first rodeo that predicted we are failing. Just look back in history to the depression and other times. They said the same thing when Yimmy Carter ran things.

We may go through a correction, but we are not going to "fail." There is no money to be made by the predictors if there isn't some kind of problem to report. Things are great doesn't sell papers unfortunately. We are not the Roman Empire.
Being "too big" is exactly why the US empire will fail eventually. It's why all empires fail.

And while it's true that the US does not overtly "take land" from other countries, it asserts military control over their land just the same. There's really no effective difference between "taking land" and controlling all the most important elements of how the land is managed. In other words, it's just a more sophisticated form of imperialism than was practiced by the Romans or even the British. Yet it is imperialism just the same, and the symptoms of it are fairly easy to identify. Probably the most striking parallel between Americans and ancient Romans is their increasing fixation on prurient interests, AKA, "bread and circuses". Romans had their coliseums and subsidized grain just as Americans have their stadiums and their subsidized corn. This is needed to keep the imperial machinery running smoothly.

Ethereal
03-22-2018, 02:37 PM
What is your definition of "oppressed and dominated"?

Killing, terrorizing, occupying, invading, overthrowing, sanctioning. You know, things the US government has been doing almost nonstop since the late 1800's.


The USA hasn't had real "enemies" since 1945.

Doesn't that tend to support my argument, though? That most of the "enemies" of the US are not real but imagined?

Ethereal
03-22-2018, 02:45 PM
I would like you to read a book titled Undaunted Courage. I often submit this book as an excellent look into centuries ago America, the struggles of life, the disease, poverty, lack of education.....and then the credible journey of imperialism that open the American West.

It has been known for quite some time our history isn't your strong suit, Ethereal. Today, we are hardly in decline, we face less threat and strife than at any time in our history. Because you don't know that, you make ridiculous thread starts like this. You'll be insulting and calling me names next inyour infamous deflection techniques, however, the content you wrote there isn't correct. And becoming educated on our history would prove that.

Yea, except you already contradicted yourself the last time we had this discussion.

You admit that westward expansion and colonization predated the existence of the US by almost 300 years, yet you try to attribute this westward expansion to the imperialist policies of the US government.

Tell me, how can the US government be responsible for something that was happening for almost 300 years prior to its existence, Mister History Genius?

Ethereal
03-22-2018, 02:51 PM
I cannot argue against government oppression.

Oh, sure you can. As long as the government oppression serves your overtly imperialist agenda, then you will become its enthusiastic supporter. The high taxes to pay for your wars and your imperialism; the mass surveillance state needed to maintain control over the population; the onerous restrictions on travel between countries; you're a big fan of them all. You're a real "progressive", just like Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.


That might be a more focused conversation. To claim the entire empire is in decline.....I'm not sure that's accurate given our history of such a messy democracy. We've had a Vietnam war. We've survived Barack Obama. We've got a fairly strong chin.

American society is strong and resilient. It will outlast the US empire for centuries, just as Italian society outlasted the Roman empire.

In any case, the US empire, like virtually all past empires, is not something that fades overnight. It takes generations of decay to rot out the machinery of empire. Yet it is decaying, and it shows absolutely no sign of reversing course.

pjohns
03-22-2018, 02:53 PM
Countries like Russia, Iran, and North Korea are no real threat to America. They have no intention of attacking our country or violating our trade and travel rights around the world.
Kim Jung-un (North Korea's madman-in-chief) has been busily developing nuclear weapons, for the precise purpose--he said so himself--of attacking the American heartland.

And Russia--according to a report I heard, just the other day--has now developed the ability to hack into our electrical grid, and also cut off our water supply.

Would you consider these to be equivalent to "no intention of attacking our country"?

jimmyz
03-22-2018, 03:00 PM
Killing, terrorizing, occupying, invading, overthrowing, sanctioning. You know, things the US government has been doing almost nonstop since the late 1800's.

Then your beef is more with the Capitalists than with the US government functionaries dancing to their tune.




Doesn't that tend to support my argument, though? That most of the "enemies" of the US are not real but imagined?

Yes it does on that particular issue.

The Xl
03-22-2018, 03:04 PM
Lol, the US has a bazillion bases globally and has fought in a trillion proxy wars, we've overthrown countries, we have our hand in literally everything globally, we're absolutely an empire.

jimmyz
03-22-2018, 03:04 PM
Kim Jung-un (North Korea's madman-in-chief) has been busily developing nuclear weapons, for the precise purpose--he said so himself--of attacking the American heartland.

And Russia--according to a report I heard, just the other day--has now developed the ability to hack into our electrical grid, and also cut off our water supply.

Would you consider these to be equivalent to "no intention of attacking our country"?
I would have to think that manual override systems are in place for water and electricity delivery and that any "hacking" disruption would be temporary.

Scerab
03-22-2018, 03:10 PM
The United States of lobbyists is facing severe austerity and inexorable economic collapse. Thanks to the republican tax scam we have a trillion dollar annual budget deficit. There is also a 21 trillion dollar debt, partially foreign owned. Let’s not forget the impending depression or recession. All of these facts are clear indicators that the US dollar will no longer be the global reserve currency. I believe that will be the herald the union’s impending doom.

What do you expect The bloody republican terrorist organization response to all that will be? They will cry out to curb welfare programs.

Let’s end Medicare!
Let’s end social security!
Let’s end food stamps!
Let’s end the head start program!
Let’s end Medicaid!
Let’s end housing and heating assistance!

All that under the pretense of bankruptcy. In other words Americans will be worse off then Venezuelans...

what is the one thing all countries with rampant poverty endure?
Crime!

Which country has the highest rate of citizen incarcerations?
The United States of lobbyists! I suppose the republican terrorist organization wants to break the current record when it comes to shoving citizens behind bars.

I truly believe that the union will not survive a second civil war. Such an affair will bring upon us unimagined catastrophes. I say that because of how well armed the citizenry is.

Ethereal
03-22-2018, 03:10 PM
Kim Jung-un (North Korea's madman-in-chief) has been busily developing nuclear weapons, for the precise purpose--he said so himself--of attacking the American heartland.

No, he's developing them in order to deter the US from invading his country and overthrowing his government. He has no actual plans or intention to attack America. That would be suicidal.

By the way, why is it rational and just for the US to have a massive nuclear arsenal, but it's irrational and unjust for North Korea to acquire a comparatively small nuclear arsenal?


And Russia--according to a report I heard, just the other day--has now developed the ability to hack into our electrical grid, and also cut off our water supply.

Yea, if "reports" are to be believed, then Donald Trump "colluded" with Russia to deny Hillary Clinton the presidency.

In any case, all countries develop such abilities, including the US. But the existence of a capability does not necessarily imply an intention to use it.

But Americans do not apply the same standards to themselves. Americans believe that when they do something, it's for purposes of defense and security. But when another country does the exact same thing, suddenly it's a sign of aggression and ambition. This, too, is a symptom of an imperial mindset.


Would you consider these to be equivalent to "no intention of attacking our country"?

Your characterization of the situation is unbalanced and not entirely accurate. You view the actions of those countries through the lens of imperialist assumptions about their motives and their mentality. If you would view the situation objectively and unemotionally, you would see both those countries are doing exactly what the US has done, and for much the same reason.

MisterVeritis
03-22-2018, 03:13 PM
The United States of lobbyists is facing severe austerity and inexorable economic collapse. Thanks to the republican tax scam we have a trillion dollar annual budget deficit. There is also a 21 trillion dollar debt, partially foreign owned. Let’s not forget the impending depression or recession. All of these facts are clear indicators that the US dollar will no longer be the global reserve currency. I believe that will be the herald the union’s impending doom.

What do you expect The bloody republican terrorist organization response to all that will be? They will cry out to curb welfare programs.

Let’s end Medicare!
Let’s end social security!
Let’s end food stamps!
Let’s end the head start program!
Let’s end Medicaid!
Let’s end housing and heating assistance!

All that under the pretense of bankruptcy. In other words Americans will be worse off then Venezuelans...

what is the one thing all countries with rampant poverty endure?
Crime!

Which country has the highest rate of citizen incarcerations?
The United States of lobbyists! I suppose the republican terrorist organization wants to break the current record when it comes to shoving citizens behind bars.

I truly believe that the union will not survive a second civil war. Such an affair will bring upon us unimagined catastrophes. I say that because of how well armed the citizenry is.
This nonsense deserves its own thread. It has no place in this one.

Ethereal
03-22-2018, 03:15 PM
Then your beef is more with the Capitalists than with the US government functionaries dancing to their tune.

Well, sure. The oligarchs who run the show are obviously the most evil and the most dangerous. But their functionaries in the US government are not innocent bystanders just twiddling their thumbs either. Indeed, many high-level officials within the US government are themselves part of the oligarchy. Bill and Hillary Clinton basically became oligarchs by rising through the ranks of government.

Ethereal
03-22-2018, 03:16 PM
Lol, the US has a bazillion bases globally and has fought in a trillion proxy wars, we've overthrown countries, we have our hand in literally everything globally, we're absolutely an empire.

It's a hard truth for Americans to swallow.

Ethereal
03-22-2018, 03:36 PM
Just look at the infighting between Republicans and Democrats. They are locked in a perpetual struggle for control of the empire. The prize? About three trillion tax dollars. You don't think people are willing to do almost anything in order to access that unprecedented pool of wealth and power?

jimmyz
03-22-2018, 04:00 PM
Lol, the US has a bazillion bases globally and has fought in a trillion proxy wars, we've overthrown countries, we have our hand in literally everything globally, we're absolutely an empire.
The "bases" secure the host country's and/or continent's security and we can be kicked out at their will (see the Philippines). And the bases have done much to aid the peace.

The "overthrown" countries were not seized and made part of the perceived "empire" of the USA save Hawaii.

Common Sense
03-22-2018, 04:06 PM
I don't agree that the US is in decline, but it certainly won't last forever. No empire does.

Max Rockatansky
03-22-2018, 04:12 PM
The US is an empire.....We are currently in the period of decline.....
Da, Comrade Ethereal! Death to the Amerikans! And a toast to the superiority of Mother Russia, yes? /sarcasm


Why do you hate the US so much? You never, ever say a bad word about the Russians or Putin. Why is that?

Max Rockatansky
03-22-2018, 04:13 PM
I don't agree that the US is in decline, but it certainly won't last forever. No empire does.
Nothing lasts forever, but the claim the US is an empire is pure 100% Left Wing Bullshit.

Tahuyaman
03-22-2018, 04:25 PM
I don't agree that the US is in decline, but it certainly won't last forever. No empire does.

We are in a period of social decline. Eventually that decline will be reversed.

The Xl
03-22-2018, 04:27 PM
Da, Comrade Ethereal! Death to the Amerikans! And a toast to the superiority of Mother Russia, yes? /sarcasm


Why do you hate the US so much? You never, ever say a bad word about the Russians or Putin. Why is that?

Why would he say anything either way about the Russians? They aren't his problem, he doesn't live in Russia. They're irrelevant.

Tahuyaman
03-22-2018, 04:28 PM
This is an interesting view



https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/02/america_is_not_an_empire.html (https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/02/america_is_not_an_empire.html)
America Is Not an Empire

The U.S. has not conquered any part of Iraqi, Afghan, German, or Japanese territory. It has never imposed its political system on any other country. It is the only military hegemon which has never used its military might to impose its own political system nor its diktats on other countries, nor to conquer foreign countries and subjugate foreign nations (although the early 19th-century War Hawks dreamed of conquering Canada).

The "American empire" is a myth. It doesn't exist, and it never did. The only people spreading the myth are implacable ideological opponents of a strong defense like Ron Paul and his cohorts of fans. For them, every American military installation abroad and every war against a foreign country is proof of an empire.

Max Rockatansky
03-22-2018, 04:38 PM
Why would he say anything either way about the Russians? They aren't his problem, he doesn't live in Russia. They're irrelevant.
Why do you think Russia, China or any hostile foreign power is irrelevant? Some people hate the USA. Some people love other countries, but if they came onto an American forum and said "Russia is better than America", people would shit all over them. However, if they came onto a forum, claimed to be an American and just shit all over America, do you think that is okay? Do you think that is honest?

Tahuyaman
03-22-2018, 05:04 PM
Russia and China are irrelevant to this discussion.

donttread
03-22-2018, 05:45 PM
The US is an empire. And every empire in history has undergone a period of expansion, stasis, decline and then implosion.

We are currently in the period of decline.

It's an empire we inherited from European powers throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Indeed, one could argue that Europe itself is a protectorate of the US empire.

The internal divisions and political strife, the insurmountable debt, the increasing centralization of power in government, the unchecked corruption and secrecy, the endless warfare, are all symptoms of the decline of empire.

Americans often feel like there are enemies and adversaries everywhere, which is why they mount no serious objections to profligate spending on the military. Yet what they perceive to be enemies and adversaries are really just countries trying to assert their independence from the US empire. Countries like Russia, Iran, and North Korea are no real threat to America. They have no intention of attacking our country or violating our trade and travel rights around the world.

Of course, virtually everyone who reads this will disagree with it in some way. But that's another symptom of imperial decline: Mass denial. The idea of the "exceptional" and "indispensable" nation (could anything be more overtly imperial?) is simply too ingrained in the minds of Americans to accept the fact that their prestige and greatness is waning. The British and the Romans were possessed of similar delusions near the ends of their great empires.

This isn't to say the US empire is going to implode anytime soon. More than likely, it will continue to limp along for at least a few more decades before the signs of its inevitable implosion really start to manifest themselves. However, what seems exceedingly clear (to me, at least) is that the empire has entered the unmistakable period of decline.

All from a country that has the natural resources to support itself with few exceptions. Our addiction to foreign oil has compromised national security more than any other action in our life times and energy policy starting in the 70's could of made us energy independent by now

The Xl
03-22-2018, 05:49 PM
Why do you think Russia, China or any hostile foreign power is irrelevant? Some people hate the USA. Some people love other countries, but if they came onto an American forum and said "Russia is better than America", people would shit all over them. However, if they came onto a forum, claimed to be an American and just shit all over America, do you think that is okay? Do you think that is honest?

It's one thing to say they're better. But I doubt he cares about them at all. What the United States does has an effect on him both directly and indirectly, Russia is irrelevant in that regard.

Dr. Who
03-22-2018, 06:03 PM
The US is an empire. And every empire in history has undergone a period of expansion, stasis, decline and then implosion.

We are currently in the period of decline.

It's an empire we inherited from European powers throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Indeed, one could argue that Europe itself is a protectorate of the US empire.

The internal divisions and political strife, the insurmountable debt, the increasing centralization of power in government, the unchecked corruption and secrecy, the endless warfare, are all symptoms of the decline of empire.

Americans often feel like there are enemies and adversaries everywhere, which is why they mount no serious objections to profligate spending on the military. Yet what they perceive to be enemies and adversaries are really just countries trying to assert their independence from the US empire. Countries like Russia, Iran, and North Korea are no real threat to America. They have no intention of attacking our country or violating our trade and travel rights around the world.

Of course, virtually everyone who reads this will disagree with it in some way. But that's another symptom of imperial decline: Mass denial. The idea of the "exceptional" and "indispensable" nation (could anything be more overtly imperial?) is simply too ingrained in the minds of Americans to accept the fact that their prestige and greatness is waning. The British and the Romans were possessed of similar delusions near the ends of their great empires.

This isn't to say the US empire is going to implode anytime soon. More than likely, it will continue to limp along for at least a few more decades before the signs of its inevitable implosion really start to manifest themselves. However, what seems exceedingly clear (to me, at least) is that the empire has entered the unmistakable period of decline.
While I don't necessarily disagree, unlike Rome, the American empire involves proxy control of some governments and the political arm-twisting of others (but no actual colonial holdings), much of it designed to benefit corporate stakeholders. If America's ability to control the internal politics of other nations declines, will it necessarily impact Americans adversely or will it ultimately impact the aspirations of globalist concerns? Furthermore, since most of this has been predicated on oil and the MIC and the future of oil is on the decline, thus the need for the MIC on shaky ground, absent a new world threat (space aliens???), the entire model starts to disintegrate, however since it would actually result in far fewer expenditures of a military and intelligence nature, would citizens be worse off?

Max Rockatansky
03-22-2018, 06:49 PM
It's one thing to say they're better. But I doubt he cares about them at all. What the United States does has an effect on him both directly and indirectly, Russia is irrelevant in that regard.
1) The United States is not an empire. It's misleading at best and a fucking lie at worst to claim that it is.

2) To always spread hate against one nation without the context of other global powers is misleading at best and an attempt to spread lies at worst.

The Xl
03-22-2018, 07:04 PM
1) The United States is not an empire. It's misleading at best and a fucking lie at worst to claim that it is.

2) To always spread hate against one nation without the context of other global powers is misleading at best and an attempt to spread lies at worst.

The United States has it's hand in literally next to everything globally. Proxy wars, bases, overthrowing elected leaders, interfering in sovereign nations affairs, you name it. If it's semantically not an empire on some arbitrary point or definition, it's the next best thing.

Ethereal
03-22-2018, 07:16 PM
While I don't necessarily disagree, unlike Rome, the American empire involves proxy control of some governments and the political arm-twisting of others (but no actual colonial holdings), much of it designed to benefit corporate stakeholders. If America's ability to control the internal politics of other nations declines, will it necessarily impact Americans adversely or will it ultimately impact the aspirations of globalist concerns? Furthermore, since most of this has been predicated on oil and the MIC and the future of oil is on the decline, thus the need for the MIC on shaky ground, absent a new world threat (space aliens???), the entire model starts to disintegrate, however since it would actually result in far fewer expenditures of a military and intelligence nature, would citizens be worse off?

I prefer to call it the US empire.

Long term, the implosion of the US empire will be a good thing, and will usher in an era of decentralization and democracy. However, as the system unravels in the interim, it will probably be a bad thing for most Americans. Not because the empire benefits them, but because the empire will place even more demands on the American people. You will see more attempts to finance the empire with cuts to entitlement programs and tax hikes on the working class, as well as further curtailment of civil liberties. The oligarchs who oversee this empire would rather watch the world burn than give up their imperial power and wealth.

Max Rockatansky
03-22-2018, 07:29 PM
I prefer to call it the US empire......
Da, comrade. Of course you do.

Max Rockatansky
03-22-2018, 07:30 PM
The United States has it's hand in literally next to everything globally. Proxy wars, bases, overthrowing elected leaders, interfering in sovereign nations affairs, you name it. If it's semantically not an empire on some arbitrary point or definition, it's the next best thing.
Why? Why do you not look at context? Why do you only slam the US and no other nations?

MisterVeritis
03-22-2018, 07:32 PM
Da, comrade. Of course you do.
Perhaps it is just me. I think this is pathetic.

Ethereal
03-22-2018, 08:24 PM
Perhaps it is just me. I think this is pathetic.
I concur.

Dr. Who
03-22-2018, 08:25 PM
I prefer to call it the US empire.

Long term, the implosion of the US empire will be a good thing, and will usher in an era of decentralization and democracy. However, as the system unravels in the interim, it will probably be a bad thing for most Americans. Not because the empire benefits them, but because the empire will place even more demands on the American people. You will see more attempts to finance the empire with cuts to entitlement programs and tax hikes on the working class, as well as further curtailment of civil liberties. The oligarchs who oversee this empire would rather watch the world burn than give up their imperial power and wealth.
I wonder whether the American public is still able to be hyped into supporting the whole "bringing freedom to the world" schtick while making America safe from the evil doers? Or, do they see that the aftermath of prior so described endeavors has not only not brought freedom as promised, but has limited their own freedom and privacy and actually resulted in increased the evil doing?

I'm not sure that evoking nationalism and righteousness is a slam dunk anymore. Certainly for your generation and people younger than yourself, waving the flag and saying trust me is no longer enough. I'm one of a generational cohort that grew up distrusting the motives of government in general. In between, there are people who are gradually abandoning the mainstream media for internet sources and thus becoming less susceptible to monocular influence.

Ethereal
03-22-2018, 08:30 PM
I wonder whether the American public is still able to be hyped into supporting the whole "bringing freedom to the world" schtick while making America safe from the evil doers? Or, do they see that the aftermath of prior so described endeavors has not only not brought freedom as promised, but has limited their own freedom and privacy and actually resulted in increased the evil doing?

I'm not sure that evoking nationalism and righteousness is a slam dunk anymore. Certainly for your generation and people younger than yourself, waving the flag and saying trust me is no longer enough. I'm one of a generational cohort that grew up distrusting the motives of government in general. In between, there are people who are gradually abandoning the mainstream media for internet sources and thus becoming less susceptible to monocular influence.
In my experience, most Americans are indifferent. They may have private reservations about how the system operates, but they are not willing to say or do much about it, so long as they have their material comforts to keep them placated.

Tahuyaman
03-22-2018, 08:31 PM
There is no such thing as an Amrrican Empire.

Common Sense
03-22-2018, 08:41 PM
We are in a period of social decline. Eventually that decline will be reversed.

That's subjective. I don't agree that there is a social decline. It's certainly an evolving society and some may not agree with the change, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a decline.

Dr. Who
03-22-2018, 08:48 PM
In my experience, most Americans are indifferent. They may have private reservations about how the system operates, but they are not willing to say or do much about it, so long as they have their material comforts to keep them placated.

Isn't the existence of the last two administrations an indication that the status quo is no longer acceptable?

Tahuyaman
03-22-2018, 08:52 PM
That's subjective. I don't agree that there is a social decline. It's certainly an evolving society and some may not agree with the change, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a decline.

It's obvious that we are in a period of societal decay. School shootings, mass shootings at public events, bombings committed by children, urban violent crime. These are a result of social decline.

Tahuyaman
03-22-2018, 08:53 PM
Isn't the existence of the last two administrations an indication that the status quo is no longer acceptable?
What about the previous administration was not status quo?

Common Sense
03-22-2018, 08:57 PM
It's obvious that we are in a period of societal decay. School shootings, mass shootings at public events, bombings committed by children, urban violent crime. These are a result of social decline.

Overall crime, including violent crime, is actually far lower than it was 30 years ago.

There are certainly things that are trending badly, like school shootings. However I don't see how societ decay has caused that. I'd blame that on a failure of addressing mental health and ease of access to weapons.

Tahuyaman
03-22-2018, 09:01 PM
Overall crime, including violent crime, is actually far lower than it was 30 years ago.

There are certainly things that are trending badly, like school shootings. However I don't see how societ decay has caused that. I'd blame that on a failure of addressing mental health and ease of access to weapons.

Then you are intentionally ignoring this. Denying that we are in a societal decline is mystifying.

Common Sense
03-22-2018, 09:21 PM
Then you are intentionally ignoring this. Denying that we are in a societal decline is mystifying.

Again, it's your opinion. To some, gay marriage and pot legalization would indicate societal decay. To others it would be considered a positive change. It's subjective based on your own opinions and values.

If crime is the indicator, then society is not in decline as crime is not as prevalent as it was. If a move towards secularism and acceptance is considered decline, then that's a different story.

Some would say that society is changing for the better. Values pertaining to inclusion, to open dialogue, to fair pay for women, for open dialogue about sexual harassment, the environmental impact of our lifestyle, the way we eat or to the way animals are treated have changed. Some would say that's societal progress.

Dr. Who
03-22-2018, 09:23 PM
What about the previous administration was not status quo?

The objections to the status quo actually vary based on political persuasion. People who voted in the previous administration were looking for relief from HMO BS and lack of insurance - basically seeking a more transparent government that would address social issues and perhaps demonstrate an ounce of idealism. People who voted in the last administration were looking to address a more extrinsically based set of social issues, lower taxes and demonstrate an ounce of idealism.

Tahuyaman
03-22-2018, 09:23 PM
There are reasons this condition of societal decay exists.

jimmyz
03-22-2018, 09:24 PM
I prefer to call it the US empire.

Long term, the implosion of the US empire will be a good thing, and will usher in an era of decentralization and democracy. However, as the system unravels in the interim, it will probably be a bad thing for most Americans. Not because the empire benefits them, but because the empire will place even more demands on the American people. You will see more attempts to finance the empire with cuts to entitlement programs and tax hikes on the working class, as well as further curtailment of civil liberties. The oligarchs who oversee this empire would rather watch the world burn than give up their imperial power and wealth.
Your prediction has been in place since the 1930s.

jimmyz
03-22-2018, 09:26 PM
That's subjective. I don't agree that there is a social decline. It's certainly an evolving society and some may not agree with the change, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a decline.
Isn't Canadian society a mirror image of American so you're decline as well

Tahuyaman
03-22-2018, 09:27 PM
The objections to the status quo actually vary based on political persuasion. People who voted in the previous administration were looking for relief from HMO BS and lack of insurance - basically seeking a more transparent government that would address social issues and perhaps demonstrate an ounce of idealism. People who voted in the last administration were looking to address a more extrinsically based set of social issues, lower taxes and demonstrate an ounce of idealism.



Heavy sigh..... What about the previous administration was not status quo?

Tahuyaman
03-22-2018, 09:29 PM
There's also no such thing as the US Empire.

jimmyz
03-22-2018, 09:29 PM
Overall crime, including violent crime, is actually far lower than it was 30 years ago.

There are certainly things that are trending badly, like school shootings. However I don't see how societ decay has caused that. I'd blame that on a failure of addressing mental health and ease of access to weapons.
Agreed but for the ease of access part

Common Sense
03-22-2018, 09:30 PM
Isn't Canadian society a mirror image of American so you're decline as well

I don't think it's that simple...but I said that I don't think the US is in decline. I don't think Canada is either.

Ethereal
03-22-2018, 09:36 PM
Your prediction has been in place since the 1930s.
Imperial decline can take decades, sometimes centuries. But it is in decline. The signs are everywhere.

Ethereal
03-22-2018, 09:37 PM
...but I said that I don't think the US is in decline.

What would you call $21 trillion in debt?

Dr. Who
03-22-2018, 09:42 PM
Then you are intentionally ignoring this. Denying that we are in a societal decline is mystifying.
We are not in total societal decline, however we do need to learn that material wealth is not a substitute for family time and that at the end of the day, kids won't remember the luxuries so much as the time that they didn't have with their parents and freedom to be normal children who can run outdoors and play with other children spontaneously.

Common Sense
03-22-2018, 09:44 PM
What would you call $21 trillion in debt?

Massive debt. Unfortunately that's how most modern economies work these days. That's an indicator of an economic problem, but not necessarily a sign that a society is in decline.

In my opinion, the biggest danger to America and something that could lead to decline, is apathy and a more and more insular society. Americas success and its excesses has made it susceptible.

Tahuyaman
03-22-2018, 09:49 PM
We are not in total societal decline, however we do need to learn that material wealth is not a substitute for family time and that at the end of the day, kids won't remember the luxuries so much as the time that they didn't have with their parents and freedom to be normal children who can run outdoors and play with other children spontaneously.


This decline is gradual. This decline isn't happening because parents are trying to provide for their family.

Ask yourself why aren't children as safe as they once were to run around outside?

Dr. Who
03-22-2018, 09:52 PM
Heavy sigh..... What about the previous administration was not status quo?
After the fact and before the fact are two different things. However, Obamacare was a definite departure from the status quo, however flawed. Recognition of same-sex marriage was a departure from the status quo. Endorsing alternative energy was a departure from the status quo as was attempting to make America energy self-sufficient.

Ethereal
03-22-2018, 09:57 PM
Massive debt. Unfortunately that's how most modern economies work these days. That's an indicator of an economic problem, but not necessarily a sign that a society is in decline.

In my opinion, the biggest danger to America and something that could lead to decline, is apathy and a more and more insular society. Americas success and its excesses has made it susceptible.

Economic problems are a symptom of social decline. The US debt is clearly unsustainable, as well as a source of endless mischief. There will be a reckoning, sooner or later.

Common Sense
03-22-2018, 09:57 PM
This decline is gradual. This decline isn't happening because parents are trying to provide for their family.

Ask yourself why aren't children as safe as they once were to run around outside?

Children are probably just as safe...parents are more protective due to the proliferation of sensational news coverage.

Dr. Who
03-22-2018, 09:59 PM
This decline is gradual. This decline isn't happening because parents are trying to provide for their family.

Ask yourself why aren't children as safe as they once were to run around outside?
Aren't they really? Just because every crime committed everywhere is known to everyone on the 6 o'clock news or on the internet, doesn't mean that there are really more pedophiles per capita than there were when we were kids. We are generally speaking just more paranoid. Where they are now less safe is in school, possibly because we don't let our children out of the house more, so they aren't learning those social skills, burning off excess energy and learning from mistakes.

Tahuyaman
03-22-2018, 09:59 PM
After the fact and before the fact are two different things. However, Obamacare was a definite departure from the status quo, however flawed. Recognition of same-sex marriage was a departure from the status quo. Endorsing alternative energy was a departure from the status quo as was attempting to make America energy self-sufficient.

The Democrat party status quo had been trying to nationalize health care for at least the last 50 years.


Endorsing the alternative energy sector by Obama was simply paying back his biggest donors. That is status quo.


Same sex marriage is just the leftward drift, status quo. Incidently the vast majority of the times that issue was on a ballot, it went down in flames. Activist courts, status quo.

Common Sense
03-22-2018, 10:00 PM
Economic problems are a symptom of social decline. The US debt is clearly unsustainable, as well as a source of endless mischief. There will be a reckoning, sooner or later.

There may well be an economic reckoning. But if that's the case, the entire west will face it as well.

I don't agree that the debt is an indicator of societal decay though. It's evidence of a flawed economic model.

Common Sense
03-22-2018, 10:05 PM
The Democrat party status quo had been trying to nationalize health care for at least the last 50 years.


Endorsing the alternative energy sector by Obama was simply paying back his biggest donors. That is status quo.


Same sex marriage is just the leftward drift, status quo. Incidently the vast majority of the times that issue was on a ballot, it went down in flames. Activist courts, status quo.

None of that is status quo. Bill Clinton didn't push for the same things. Obama wasa departure from many standard Dem policies.

Obama didn't push for alternative energy because of some sort of kickback. He probably did it because it was the right thing to do and it was supported by his base.

In some ways Obama was status quo, but in many ways he wasn't.

Tahuyaman
03-22-2018, 10:07 PM
There was nothing anti status quo about the Obama administration. Get over it.

Tahuyaman
03-22-2018, 10:09 PM
Aren't they really?...
Yes, really.

Tahuyaman
03-22-2018, 10:10 PM
Children are probably just as safe...parents are more protective due to the proliferation of sensational news coverage.

They aren't, but dont worry yourself over it.

Common Sense
03-22-2018, 10:14 PM
There was nothing anti status quo about the Obama administration. Get over it.
Huh. All the ranting and raving about his presidency could have fooled me. Around here he was considered to have destroyed America, implemented socialism, embraced Islamic terrorism and eroded American exceptionalism.

Dr. Who
03-22-2018, 10:16 PM
The Democrat party status quo had been trying to nationalize health care for at least the last 50 years.


Endorsing the alternative energy sector by Obama was simply paying back his biggest donors. That is status quo.


Same sex marriage is just the leftward drift, status quo. Incidently the vast majority of the times that issue was on a ballot, it went down in flames. Activist courts, status quo.
Status quo means maintaining the existing state of affairs, especially regarding social or political issues. Obama did not maintain the existing state of affairs in several respects and that was his platform. It was based on change and that is what people were endorsing.

Common Sense
03-22-2018, 10:17 PM
They aren't, but dont worry yourself over it.

They actually are, but don't let facts get in the way of hysteria.

There’s never been a safer time to be a kid in America

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/14/theres-never-been-a-safer-time-to-be-a-kid-in-america/?utm_term=.d5cb67f56aa7

Tahuyaman
03-22-2018, 10:18 PM
Whatever. You'd argue any stupid position.

Dr. Who
03-22-2018, 10:19 PM
Yes, really.

Where is your objective proof that they are less safe?

Tahuyaman
03-22-2018, 10:21 PM
Status quo means maintaining the existing state of affairs, especially regarding social or political issues. Obama did not maintain the existing state of affairs in several respects and that was his platform. It was based on change and that is what people were endorsing.


The reason Trump was elected because people were disgusted and angered by the status quo. Hope and change was exposed as a vapid slogan.

Tahuyaman
03-22-2018, 10:24 PM
Where is your objective proof that they are less safe?


A firm grasp of reality and normal observation skills.

Ethereal
03-22-2018, 10:25 PM
There may well be an economic reckoning. But if that's the case, the entire west will face it as well.

I don't agree that the debt is an indicator of societal decay though. It's evidence of a flawed economic model.

Trump is the President.

I rest my case.

Common Sense
03-22-2018, 10:25 PM
Whatever. You'd argue any stupid position.
What stupid position?

The reality is that people perceive more danger these days, but in fact there is less.

What's stupid is to hold a position based on your feelings rather than the facts.

Ethereal
03-22-2018, 10:26 PM
The reality is that people perceive more danger these days, but in fact there is less.

A sure sign of social decay, no?

Common Sense
03-22-2018, 10:26 PM
Trump is the President.

I rest my case.

Well, you got me there.

Common Sense
03-22-2018, 10:28 PM
A sure sign of social decay, no?

Not necessarily. It's certainly a problem, but all societies have their faults.

Ethereal
03-22-2018, 10:31 PM
Well, you got me there.
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/justdance/images/2/2d/Borat_great_success-450x337.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20151007192830

Dr. Who
03-22-2018, 10:31 PM
Whatever. You'd argue any stupid position.
Why would you think that it's stupid to believe that kids are actually safer now, given the declining rates of crime, especially on children and the stricter standards for drivers. We live in an alarmist society where most of the boogeymen are strictly products of fertile imaginations egged on by the paranoid. We'd rather turn our kids into friendless, social misfits than let them be free to be normal children. We are literally locking them in cages for their own protection and turning them into lazy, overweight, couch potatoes whose life expectancy will likely be shorter than our own.

Tahuyaman
03-22-2018, 10:31 PM
What stupid position?

The reality is that people perceive more danger these days, but in fact there is less.

What's stupid is to hold a position based on your feelings rather than the facts.


The dangers are more prolific and random today. School shooting are at the point epwhenwhat no one is shocked any more. Same with mass shootings and bombings. No one even bothers to talk about inner city violent crime. It's accepted as the new normal.

Tahuyaman
03-22-2018, 10:33 PM
Why would you think that it's stupid to believe that kids are actually safer now,...

Because it isn't true.

Dr. Who
03-22-2018, 10:42 PM
The dangers are more prolific and random today. School shooting are at the point epwhenwhat no one is shocked any more. Same with mass shootings and bombings. No one even bothers to talk about inner city violent crime. It's accepted as the new normal.
Do you think that most children are living in inner cities? Do suburban or non-inner city children need to stay indoors all of the time, except when helicopter parents have time to supervise their play? Good grief. I would have been the most miserable child in the world if I was required to stay indoors except when my mother had the time to go out and watch me play. That would have been never. She knew generally where I was, but it might have been half a mile away. I came home for meals.

Common Sense
03-22-2018, 10:42 PM
The dangers are more prolific and random today. School shooting are at the point epwhenwhat no one is shocked any more. Same with mass shootings and bombings. No one even bothers to talk about inner city violent crime. It's accepted as the new normal.



I'm not saying that school shootings aren't a recent phenomenon and on the rise, but they are still statistically low. Children are more likely to get hit by lightning.

The fact remains, kids are safer today yet media sensationalism makes people think they aren't. Yet they are. That's just a fact.

Dr. Who
03-22-2018, 10:43 PM
Because it isn't true.

What is your objective proof of that statement?

Common Sense
03-22-2018, 10:44 PM
Because it isn't true.
Can you support that claim? I've provided a link with stats that say the opposite.

Can you prove that children are less safe these days?

Dr. Who
03-22-2018, 10:54 PM
The reason Trump was elected because people were disgusted and angered by the status quo. Hope and change was exposed as a vapid slogan.
Some people were disgusted and angered by the prior administration - not because it was the status quo, but because it wasn't. Some people wanted "their" specific issues addressed, which were not addressed by the prior administration and some people were just sick of the whole donkephant dynamic (some of whom were actually Bernie supporters) and voted for Trump in rebellion. Trump's election was not necessarily an endorsement of his policies, but a stick in the eye to both the DNC and RNC and a warning to smarten up.

Dr. Who
03-22-2018, 10:56 PM
A firm grasp of reality and normal observation skills.
I take it that you are seeing menacing kidnappers eyeballing kids every day.

jimmyz
03-22-2018, 10:59 PM
I don't agree that the US is in decline, but it certainly won't last forever. No empire does.

North America survives. The Eskimos dont care.

jimmyz
03-22-2018, 11:01 PM
What stupid position?

The reality is that people perceive more danger these days, but in fact there is less.

What's stupid is to hold a position based on your feelings rather than the facts.
Like Progressive Leftist positions here in the USA right.

Common Sense
03-22-2018, 11:10 PM
North America survives. The Eskimos dont care.
Inuit.

jimmyz
03-22-2018, 11:21 PM
Inuit.

Whatever... as long as their lack of underwear and sharing allows fun times in the igloo.

Tahuyaman
03-22-2018, 11:22 PM
I take it that you are seeing menacing kidnappers eyeballing kids every day.

Show me a parent who's not concerned about the safety of their child while at school. Are people able to go a large spiriting event or concert without considering their safety at such event?

Common Sense
03-22-2018, 11:30 PM
Show me a parent who's not concerned about the safety of their child while at school. Are people able to go a large spiriting event or concert without considering their safety at such event?

Feelings and concerns don't equal hard facts.

What is actually happening is that people's perception is based on the medias sensational coverage rather than actual trends. If you base your fears on the 24 hour news cycle, you'd think there are pedophiles everywhere and transsexuals are luring kids into rainbow parties.

Dr. Who
03-22-2018, 11:31 PM
Show me a parent who's not concerned about the safety of their child while at school. Are people able to go a large spiriting event or concert without considering their safety at such event?

That's really not the same as letting your kids play outside. Those killers are looking for specifics - either they are targeting teachers and classmates or they are looking for a densely packed crowd to maximize the effect of their shots. However, if kids are only allowed to play in parks with parent(s) present, they actually make a more target rich environment than kids playing in random locations.

Common Sense
03-22-2018, 11:34 PM
Clearly fear is a powerful motivator. Maybe more so than mundane facts.

Could explain the current state of affairs...

Tahuyaman
03-22-2018, 11:39 PM
I can see this is going nowhere. Evidently some of these people are in the mindset that they are still living in the days of Leave It To Beaver.

Common Sense
03-22-2018, 11:46 PM
I can see this is going nowhere. Evidently some of these people are in the mindset that they are still living in the days of Leave It To Beaver.

You say that, yet you ignore the facts presented to you.

Leave It To Beaver was a TV show. It didn't reflect the reality of the times. It was a whitewashed and idealized example of entertainment. It was as accurate a depiction of life in the 50's as Bonanza was an accurate depiction of frontier life in the mid 1800's.

Again, what facts or statistics suggest that the present is more dangerous for children?

Dr. Who
03-22-2018, 11:46 PM
Clearly fear is a powerful motivator. Maybe more so than mundane facts.

Could explain the current state of affairs...
It's ironic that when I was a kid, conservative parents didn't hover - they expected you to learn and take care of yourself. My mother was a conservative farm girl and if you did something stupid and got hurt, you not only got no sympathy whatsoever, you received a lecture and perhaps punishment. Paranoia wasn't in her vocabulary. Don't talk to strangers, particularly strange men was absolute with her. She wasn't one to tell you twice.

Tahuyaman
03-22-2018, 11:52 PM
Parents didn't hover because they didn't need to. I could go to school and be assured that no one would walk through the halls killing people. I could go to a concert or football game without needing to be patted down then walk through a metal detector.


The only time I saw a police officer in school was when he was coming toms drivers ed class. Now it's odd if you don't see one in school m

Common Sense
03-22-2018, 11:55 PM
Parents didn't hover because they didn't need to. I could go to school and be assured that no one would walk through the halls killing people. I could go to a concert or football game without needing to be patted down then walk through a metal detector.

Yet statistically there was more danger back then. Homicide rates and abduction rates for children have been falling for decades.

Tahuyaman
03-22-2018, 11:59 PM
Yet statistically there was more danger back then. Homicide rates and abduction rates for children have been falling for decades.


There were no school shootings when I was a kid. There were no mass killings at a concert when I was a kid. Entire areas of a city weren't dominated by criminal gangs when I was a kid.

Dr. Who
03-23-2018, 12:03 AM
Parents didn't hover because they didn't need to. I could go to school and be assured that no one would walk through the halls killing people. I could go to a concert or football game without needing to be patted down then walk through a metal detector.


The only time I saw a police officer in school was when he was coming toms drivers ed class. Now it's odd if you don't see one in school m
You are focusing on schools. That's not the same as playing baseball in an open area or hockey on the street or riding bikes all over the place and racing each other or climbing trees and building forts and pelting each other with berries or snowballs. It's not the same as a gang of kids going to a public pool together or to a rec center or tobogganing at a nearby hill or skating in a park sans parents.

Tahuyaman
03-23-2018, 12:07 AM
You are focusing on schools. That's not the same as playing baseball in an open area or hockey on the street or riding bikes all over the place and racing each other or climbing trees and building forts and pelting each other with berries or snowballs. It's not the same as a gang of kids going to a public pool together or to a rec center or tobogganing at a nearby hill or skating in a park sans parents.


Ok, you can let your kids go roam around like we did years ago. That's not prudent today.

Common Sense
03-23-2018, 12:08 AM
There were no school shootings when I was a kid. There were no mass killings at a concert when I was a kid. Entire areas of a city weren't dominated by criminal gangs when I was a kid.

I was a kid in the 70's. There were school shootings then, but there was no 24 hour news cycle.

I don't recall any concert shootings, but there were plenty of gangs. In fact when I was in high school there were more gangs than there are now.

I wish that you would consider this point...that crime has declined but the coverage has increased. This has created a perception of increasing danger when the actual danger has declined.

Tahuyaman
03-23-2018, 12:12 AM
I was a kid in the 70's. There were school shootings then, but there was no 24 hour news cycle.

I don't recall any concert shootings, but there were plenty of gangs. In fact when I was in high school there were more gangs than there are now.

I wish that you would consider this point...that crime has declined but the coverage has increased. This has created a perception of increasing danger when the actual danger has declined.


School shootings in the 70's. How many? Not school shootings like Kent State either. Gangs in the 70's might start a fight. They weren't murdering hundreds of people every year.

Common Sense
03-23-2018, 12:17 AM
School shootings in the 70's. How many? Not school shootings like Kent State either. Gangs in the 70's might start a fight. They weren't murdering hundreds of people every year.
You're seeing the past through rose coloured glasses.

I've already presented facts to you that went ignored. I'm not going to search for more for you to ignore.

Tahuyaman
03-23-2018, 12:23 AM
You're seeing the past through rose coloured glasses.

I've already presented facts to you that went ignored. I'm not going to search for more for you to ignore.



You're looking at the present through rose colored glasses.

Common Sense
03-23-2018, 12:31 AM
You're looking at the present through rose colored glasses.

I'm not. I've presented facts, you've presented feelings.

The fact remains, statistics show that children are safer today.

Unless you can show me some stats that show children are in more danger today, I'll assume you're basing your opinion on your feelings rather than facts.

William
03-23-2018, 01:41 AM
Ethereal and I have not always agreed before (but that was mainly due to a misunderstanding about who I am,) but I was very impressed with his OP. I don't know whether the USA is a real empire or not, and given the history of the American colonies rebelling against the British Empire - I can understand many Americans not wanting to think of themselves as an empire.

So I'm not taking anybody's side on that question, but Ethereal's honest appraisal of his country's role and actions in the world should be admired. It is too easy to go around saying "We are the greatest ..." and this will get most nationalistic people nodding in agreement. It takes courage and honesty to point to the faults in your own society, but it is only by drawing attention to those faults that anything can be done to correct them.

I am disappointed at how few other Americans here seem to agree with him, and how many seem to be attacking him for what he said. Everyone thinks where they live is great, but as someone pointed out - Americans should wonder at why the USA has so many enemies around the world. If it really is this friendly giant who looks after everyone - shouldn't everyone love Americans? Like even your closest allies - like we Brits and Aussies, speak rather sneeringly of 'the Yanks'. Why is that?

Orion Rules
03-23-2018, 02:40 AM
Originally Posted by Ethereal:
The US is an empire. And every empire in history has undergone a period of expansion, stasis, decline and then implosion.

We are currently in the period of decline.

It's an empire we inherited from European powers throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Indeed, one could argue that Europe itself is a protectorate of the US empire.

The internal divisions and political strife, the insurmountable debt, the increasing centralization of power in government, the unchecked corruption and secrecy, the endless warfare, are all symptoms of the decline of empire.

Americans often feel like there are enemies and adversaries everywhere, which is why they mount no serious objections to profligate spending on the military. Yet what they perceive to be enemies and adversaries are really just countries trying to assert their independence from the US empire. Countries like Russia, Iran, and North Korea are no real threat to America. They have no intention of attacking our country or violating our trade and travel rights around the world.

Of course, virtually everyone who reads this will disagree with it in some way. But that's another symptom of imperial decline: Mass denial. The idea of the "exceptional" and "indispensable" nation (could anything be more overtly imperial?) is simply too ingrained in the minds of Americans to accept the fact that their prestige and greatness is waning. The British and the Romans were possessed of similar delusions near the ends of their great empires.

This isn't to say the US empire is going to implode anytime soon. More than likely, it will continue to limp along for at least a few more decades before the signs of its inevitable implosion really start to manifest themselves. However, what seems exceedingly clear (to me, at least) is that the empire has entered the unmistakable period of decline.


I would like you to read a book titled Undaunted Courage. I often submit this book as an excellent look into centuries ago America, the struggles of life, the disease, poverty, lack of education.....and then the credible journey of imperialism that open the American West.

It has been known for quite some time our history isn't your strong suit, Ethereal. Today, we are hardly in decline, we face less threat and strife than at any time in our history. Because you don't know that, you make ridiculous thread starts like this. You'll be insulting and calling me names next inyour infamous deflection techniques, however, the content you wrote there isn't correct. And becoming educated on our history would prove that.When money is all they ever cared about that is the end of a Union supposed of, that is all they, the elite, ever cared about. It always comes down to how much money is left. Because that is all it ever was, is just how so much money belongs to what is left. Tel el-Amarna is all they ever got. It only proves how much they got to plunder Egypt.

Max Rockatansky
03-23-2018, 07:38 AM
It's one thing to say they're better. But I doubt he cares about them at all. What the United States does has an effect on him both directly and indirectly, Russia is irrelevant in that regard.
Disagreed. We don't live in a vacuum. Our actions affect others and the actions of others affect us whether as individuals or nations.

John Donne's poem "No Man is an Island" alludes to this: https://web.cs.dal.ca/~johnston/poetry/island.html

The United States is what it is and does as it does in a large part because of Russia, China, North Korea, ISIS and other hostile forces in the world. If you think other nations don't have an affect on the US, then you haven't flown in an airliner since 9/11 or watched the price of gasoline rise and fall in line with world events.

Tahuyaman
03-23-2018, 09:35 AM
I'm not. I've presented facts, you've presented feelings.

The fact remains, statistics show that children are safer today.

Unless you can show me some stats that show children are in more danger today, I'll assume you're basing your opinion on your feelings rather than facts.


One can prove anything by citing statistics.

MisterVeritis
03-23-2018, 09:42 AM
It's ironic that when I was a kid, conservative parents didn't hover - they expected you to learn and take care of yourself. My mother was a conservative farm girl and if you did something stupid and got hurt, you not only got no sympathy whatsoever, you received a lecture and perhaps punishment. Paranoia wasn't in her vocabulary. Don't talk to strangers, particularly strange men was absolute with her. She wasn't one to tell you twice.
It is almost as if parents were preparing their children to be adults.

Today we do all we can to infantilize them for as long as possible. Visualize childhood extending to age 26.

Max Rockatansky
03-23-2018, 09:42 AM
I'm not. I've presented facts, you've presented feelings.
The fact remains, statistics show that children are safer today.
Unless you can show me some stats that show children are in more danger today, I'll assume you're basing your opinion on your feelings rather than facts.
Agreed. All the FBI stats show the violent crime rate is going down over the long term, but there is a small uptick in the near term. Nanny Statism has protected thousands of kids from dying...not always a good thing depending on the intelligence of the parent(s).

In my day we had to worry about global nuclear annihilation. Today, it's just an occasional terrorist attack or some nutjob.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/violent-crime
Overview


In 2016, an estimated 1,248,185 violent crimes occurred nationwide, an increase of 4.1 percent from the 2015 estimate. (See Tables 1 (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-1) and 1A (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-1a).)


When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2016 estimated violent crime total was 2.6 percent above the 2012 level and 12.3 percent below the 2007 level. (See Tables 1 (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-1) and 1A (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-1a).)


There were an estimated 386.3 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2016, a rate that rose 3.4 percent when compared with the 2015 estimated violent crime rate. (See Tables 1 (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-1) and 1A (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-1a).)


Aggravated assaults accounted for 64.3 percent of violent crimes reported to law enforcement in 2016. Robbery offenses accounted for 26.6 percent of violent crime offenses; rape (legacy definition) accounted for 7.7 percent; and murder accounted for 1.4 percent. (Based on Table 1 (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-1).)
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/figures/violent-crime-offense.gif/@@images/27ae607e-38ce-4b69-9f3b-5278600554ff.jpeg
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/dec/04/jeff-sessions/violent-crime-some-still-well-historical-highs/

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/U0YlrTTCYi550Z4py1MNVenNt-E1oi5vqbMX2nSIAvMVfGW-XDI9VOPjUOa9wKI7fnxsoWyv7kLrHKfJg7iMGIpDNvNC99uBoQ XMbuTEqsqTzvYVcBkSKamYcIRn7E0bTHAFop3w

MisterVeritis
03-23-2018, 09:44 AM
One can prove anything by citing statistics.
One can lie with statistics but it is far easier to lie without them.

Once again you find yourself on the losing side of an argument.

Tahuyaman
03-23-2018, 09:55 AM
One can lie with statistics but it is far easier to lie without them.

Once again you find yourself on the losing side of an argument.

Once again, you don't know what you are talking about.

MisterVeritis
03-23-2018, 09:56 AM
One can lie with statistics but it is far easier to lie without them.
Once again you find yourself on the losing side of an argument.

Once again, you don't know what you are talking about.
Your response makes me smile.

Tahuyaman
03-23-2018, 10:08 AM
One can lie with statistics but it is far easier to lie without them.
Once again you find yourself on the losing side of an argument.

Your response makes me smile.


Find a new line. That one is worn out.

Tahuyaman
03-23-2018, 10:27 AM
Back to the real topic at hand, the "US Empire" is not crumbling primarily because this empire doesn't exist. Nor has it ever existed.


The US does not go out and conquer foreign lands and then impose it's will upon those lands.

MisterVeritis
03-23-2018, 10:29 AM
Your response makes me smile.

Find a new line. That one is worn out.
I rather like it. Additionally, it has the benefit of being truthful.

Tahuyaman
03-23-2018, 10:35 AM
Your response makes me smile.

I rather like it. Additionally, it has the benefit of being truthful.

You like odd things.

MisterVeritis
03-23-2018, 10:36 AM
I rather like it. Additionally, it has the benefit of being truthful.

You like odd things.
...like the truth.

Common Sense
03-23-2018, 10:37 AM
Back to the real topic at hand, the "US Empire" is not crumbling primarily because this empire doesn't exist. Nor has it ever existed.


The US does not go out and conquer foreign lands and then impose it's will upon those lands.
I agree it's not an empire in the classic sense, but the US has indeed conquered lands and imposed its will upon them. The US fought against native Americans, the Spanish/Mexicans and conquered Pacific Islands.

Certainly just looking at a map of US military instillations around the world, one could claim that the US is an imperial force.

While an argument could be made that the US is a benevolent form of imperialism, it's still pretty clear that it is an empire of sorts. It's not a criticism of the US, it's just a reality.

Tahuyaman
03-23-2018, 10:53 AM
I agree it's not an empire in the classic sense, but the US has indeed conquered lands and imposed its will upon them. The US fought against native Americans, the Spanish/Mexicans and conquered Pacific Islands.

Certainly just looking at a map of US military instillations around the world, one could claim that the US is an imperial force.

While an argument could be made that the US is a benevolent form of imperialism, it's still pretty clear that it is an empire of sorts. It's not a criticism of the US, it's just a reality.


When the US defeats a nation in war, that nation governs themselves. They aren't "conquered". They restore their own government and culture. They don't become Americans.

Common Sense
03-23-2018, 11:43 AM
When the US defeats a nation in war, that nation governs themselves. They aren't "conquered". They restore their own government and culture. They don't become Americans.
Texas, Hawaii and all the areas taken from Native Americans were indeed conquered.

Again, it's not a criticism. Canada did the same in North America (Quebec and native lands).

jimmyz
03-23-2018, 12:09 PM
I agree it's not an empire in the classic sense, but the US has indeed conquered lands and imposed its will upon them. The US fought against native Americans, the Spanish/Mexicans and conquered Pacific Islands.

Certainly just looking at a map of US military instillations around the world, one could claim that the US is an imperial force.

While an argument could be made that the US is a benevolent form of imperialism, it's still pretty clear that it is an empire of sorts. It's not a criticism of the US, it's just a reality.

We can be booted from any foreign country hosting our land, air and sea bases at anytime at the host country's will. Those bases have nothing to do with the claim of empire building.

Ethereal
03-23-2018, 01:50 PM
While an argument could be made that the US is a benevolent form of imperialism...

Yes, one could make that argument...

Ethereal
03-23-2018, 01:52 PM
We can be booted from any foreign country hosting our land, air and sea bases at anytime at the host country's will. Those bases have nothing to do with the claim of empire building.
Sure, after they've had their previous governments overthrown and purged through mass violence, the "host" country has every right to throw us out. How generous of us.

Ethereal
03-23-2018, 02:14 PM
15 Years Ago, America Destroyed My Country (https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/03/20/15-years-ago-america-destroyed-my-country)

I never thought that Iraq could ever be worse than it was during Saddam's reign, but the 2003 US invasion changed that

by Sinan Antoon

When I was 12, Saddam Hussein, vice president of Iraq at the time, carried out a huge purge and officially usurped total power. I was living in Baghdad then, and I developed an intuitive, visceral hatred of the dictator early on. That feeling only intensified and matured as I did. In the late 1990s, I wrote my first novel, “I’jaam: An Iraqi Rhapsody,” about daily life under Saddam’s authoritarian regime. Furat, the narrator, was a young college student studying English literature at Baghdad University, as I had. He ends up in prison for cracking a joke about the dictator. Furat hallucinates and imagines Saddam’s fall, just as I often did. I hoped I would witness that moment, whether in Iraq or from afar.

I left Iraq a few months after the 1991 Gulf War and went to graduate school in the United States, where I’ve been ever since. In 2002, when the cheerleading for the Iraq war started, I was vehemently against the proposed invasion. The United States had consistently supported dictators in the Arab world and was not in the business of exporting democracy, irrespective of the Bush administration’s slogans. I recalled sitting in my family’s living room with my aunt when I was a teenager, watching Iraqi television and seeing Donald Rumsfeld visiting Baghdad as an emissary from Ronald Reagan and shaking hands with Saddam. That memory made Mr. Rumsfeld’s words in 2002 about freedom and democracy for Iraqis seem hollow. Moreover, having lived through two previous wars (the Iran-Iraq war of 1980 to 1988 and the Gulf War of 1991), I knew that the actual objectives of war were always camouflaged by well-designed lies that exploit collective fear and perpetuate national myths.

I was one of about 500 Iraqis in the diaspora — of various ethnic and political backgrounds, many of whom were dissidents and victims of Saddam’s regime — who signed a petition: “No to war on Iraq. No to dictatorship.” While condemning Saddam’s reign of terror, we were against a “war that would cause more death and suffering” for innocent Iraqis and one that threatened to push the entire region into violent chaos. Our voices were not welcomed in mainstream media in the United States, which preferred the pro-war Iraqi-American who promised cheering crowds that would welcome invaders with “sweets and flowers.” There were none.

The petition didn’t make much of an impact. Fifteen years ago today, the invasion of Iraq began.

[...]

Will Americans ever come to terms with the horrific violence and chaos the US government inflicts on innocent foreigners?

pjohns
03-23-2018, 02:18 PM
Lol, the US has...overthrown countries...

Well, the US has certainly overthrown some governments.

But when (and how, even) has it overthrown some "countries"?

Mister D
03-23-2018, 02:21 PM
A different perspective for you @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870) I'm in the middle of Peter Wilson's Heart of Europe about the Holy Roman Empire and it reminded me of this essay. Then I saw your thread...


http://www.gornahoor.net/library/IdeaOfEmpire.pdf (http://www.gornahoor.net/library/IdeaOfEmpire.pdf)



At the height of the Roman Empire, Rome was an idea, a principle, which made it possible to unite different peoples without converting or suppressing them. The principle of imperium, which was already at work in republican Rome, reflected the will to realize an always threatened cosmic order. The Roman Empire did not require jealous gods. It admitted other divinities, known or unknown, and the same is the case in the political order. The empire accepted foreign cults and the diversity of juridical codes. Each people was free to organize its federation in terms of its traditional concept of law. The Roman jus prevailed only in relations between individuals of different peoples or in relations between federations.One could be a Roman citizen (civis romanus sum) without abandoning one’s nationality.

This distinction (foreign to the spirit of the nation) between what today is called nationality andcitizenship can be found in the Germanic Roman Empire. The medieval Reich, a supra-nationalinstitution (because animated by a principle beyond the political order), was fundamentally pluralist. Itallowed people to live their own lives according to their own law. In modern language, it wascharacterized by a marked “federalism” particularly able to respect minorities. After all, the AustroHungarianEmpire functioned efficiently for centuries while minorities began to constitute most of itspopulation (60% of the total). It brought together Italians and Romanians, as well as Jews, Serbs,Russians, Germans, Poles, Czechs, Croats and Hungarians. Jean Branger writes that “the Hapsburgs werealways indifferent to the concept of nation-state,” even to the point where this empire, founded by thehouse of Austria, for many centuries refused to create an “Austrian nation,” which really only tookshape in the 20th century.

pjohns
03-23-2018, 02:23 PM
I would have to think that manual override systems are in place for water and electricity delivery and that any "hacking" disruption would be temporary.

Do you truly know? Or do you just merely "think" what you would prefer?

And the report I heard did not indicate that the cutting off of our power and/or water supply would be just "temporary" (unless, by that term, you mean until Russia brought us to our knees).

In any case, you have not addressed the central question, viz.: Would you consider this the equivalent of "no intention of attacking our country?"

jimmyz
03-23-2018, 02:25 PM
Sure, after they've had their previous governments overthrown and purged through mass violence, the "host" country has every right to throw us out. How generous of us.

Only Iraq fits that narrative.

pjohns
03-23-2018, 02:35 PM
No, he's developing them in order to deter the US from invading his country and overthrowing his government. He has no actual plans or intention to attack America. That would be suicidal.

The first sentence, above, parrots Dear Leader's pwn words.

The second sentence ignores his words.

As for the third sentence, it ignores something also: namely, fact that he can now use his nukes as blackmail...




By the way, why is it rational and just for the US to have a massive nuclear arsenal, but it's irrational and unjust for North Korea to acquire a comparatively small nuclear arsenal?
Well, the Non-Proliferation Treaty (or "NPT, for short) denies him that right, for openers. (True, it is widely believed that India, Pakistan, and Israel have nuclear weapons--and this is probably true--but they at least have the decency not to flaunt them.)



Yea, if "reports" are to be believed, then Donald Trump "colluded" with Russia to deny Hillary Clinton the presidency.

What is it, specifically, about this report that you find untenable? And why, exactly?

Ethereal
03-23-2018, 02:35 PM
A different perspective for you @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870) I'm in the middle of Peter Wilson's Heart of Europe about the Holy Roman Empire and it reminded me of this essay. Then I saw your thread...


http://www.gornahoor.net/library/IdeaOfEmpire.pdf (http://www.gornahoor.net/library/IdeaOfEmpire.pdf)



At the height of the Roman Empire, Rome was an idea, a principle, which made it possible to unite different peoples without converting or suppressing them. The principle of imperium, which was already at work in republican Rome, reflected the will to realize an always threatened cosmic order. The Roman Empire did not require jealous gods. It admitted other divinities, known or unknown, and the same is the case in the political order. The empire accepted foreign cults and the diversity of juridical codes. Each people was free to organize its federation in terms of its traditional concept of law. The Roman jus prevailed only in relations between individuals of different peoples or in relations between federations.One could be a Roman citizen (civis romanus sum) without abandoning one’s nationality.

This distinction (foreign to the spirit of the nation) between what today is called nationality andcitizenship can be found in the Germanic Roman Empire. The medieval Reich, a supra-nationalinstitution (because animated by a principle beyond the political order), was fundamentally pluralist. Itallowed people to live their own lives according to their own law. In modern language, it wascharacterized by a marked “federalism” particularly able to respect minorities. After all, the AustroHungarianEmpire functioned efficiently for centuries while minorities began to constitute most of itspopulation (60% of the total). It brought together Italians and Romanians, as well as Jews, Serbs,Russians, Germans, Poles, Czechs, Croats and Hungarians. Jean Branger writes that “the Hapsburgs werealways indifferent to the concept of nation-state,” even to the point where this empire, founded by thehouse of Austria, for many centuries refused to create an “Austrian nation,” which really only tookshape in the 20th century.
Thanks, I will check it out.

pjohns
03-23-2018, 02:39 PM
Why would he say anything either way about the Russians?
Perhaps for the sake of some balance?

pjohns
03-23-2018, 02:44 PM
This is an interesting view


America Is Not an Empire

The U.S. has not conquered any part of Iraqi, Afghan, German, or Japanese territory. It has never imposed its political system on any other country. It is the only military hegemon which has never used its military might to impose its own political system nor its diktats on other countries, nor to conquer foreign countries and subjugate foreign nations (although the early 19th-century War Hawks dreamed of conquering Canada).

The "American empire" is a myth. It doesn't exist, and it never did. The only people spreading the myth are implacable ideological opponents of a strong defense like Ron Paul and his cohorts of fans. For them, every American military installation abroad and every war against a foreign country is proof of an empire.


https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/02/america_is_not_an_empire.html (https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/02/america_is_not_an_empire.html)
America Is Not an Empire

The U.S. has not conquered any part of Iraqi, Afghan, German, or Japanese territory. It has never imposed its political system on any other country. It is the only military hegemon which has never used its military might to impose its own political system nor its diktats on other countries, nor to conquer foreign countries and subjugate foreign nations (although the early 19th-century War Hawks dreamed of conquering Canada).

The "American empire" is a myth. It doesn't exist, and it never did. The only people spreading the myth are implacable ideological opponents of a strong defense like Ron Paul and his cohorts of fans. For them, every American military installation abroad and every war against a foreign country is proof of an empire.



It is also probably worth noting that, just following the end of WWII, the US--if it had been so inclined--could have easily played the role of conquerer (over Japan, Germany, and Italy). But it did not. (True, Germany was divided into East Germany and West Germany--a genuflection to Joseph Stalin--and that was a mistake, I believe. But the US certainly did not act as a conquering power.)

pjohns
03-23-2018, 02:51 PM
In my experience, most Americans are indifferent. They may have private reservations about how the system operates, but they are not willing to say or do much about it, so long as they have their material comforts to keep them placated.

Do you, then, consider yourself superior to "most Americans"?

The Xl
03-23-2018, 02:52 PM
Perhaps for the sake of some balance?
The Russians aren't his problem. It isn't their policy that effects him.

Ethereal
03-23-2018, 02:54 PM
The first sentence, above, parrots Dear Leader's pwn words.

His words happen to be true.


The second sentence ignores his words.

No, it doesn't. You are misrepresenting the position of the North Korean government. Any attack against America would be conditional, i.e., if we attack them, then they will attack us. You left that condition out in order to give the impression that the North Korean government wants to launch an unprovoked attack on America, which simply isn't the case.


As for the third sentence, it ignores something also: namely, fact that he can now use his nukes as blackmail...

The third sentence ignores nothing. It's a simple statement of fact. Any attack on the US would be suicidal.


Well, the Non-Proliferation Treaty (or "NPT, for short) denies him that right, for openers.

North Korea withdrew from that treaty in 2003.


(True, it is widely believed that India, Pakistan, and Israel have nuclear weapons--and this is probably true--but they at least have the decency not to flaunt them.)

I didn't realize that "flaunting" nuclear weapons was the standard for determining a country's right to possess them. You learn something new everyday.


What is it, specifically, about this report that you find untenable? And why, exactly?

Well, we can start with the fact that you didn't actually cite what "report" you were talking about.

But as I already pointed out, the existence of a capability does not necessarily imply any intent to use it. Moreover, the US also possesses such capabilities, so why is it okay for the US but not okay for Russia? Do you think ignoring these glaring double-standards will make them go away or something?

The Xl
03-23-2018, 02:56 PM
Why? Why do you not look at context? Why do you only slam the US and no other nations?

What's the context? More often then not, the actions of other nations are a cover for the United States to overstep their boundaries. As far as the quality of other nations goes, while the United States is certainly a better place to live than Russia or China, for instance, I'm not worried about their actions and the quality of life of their average citizen or lack thereof, because it doesn't concern me.

pjohns
03-23-2018, 02:58 PM
What would you call $21 trillion in debt?
I would call it politicians wanting to get re-elected, by handing out all possible goodies to their constituents.


This is just another reason why I thoroughly oppose The Political Class, and wish for its entire extinction...

Ethereal
03-23-2018, 02:58 PM
Perhaps for the sake of some balance?

Balance is exactly what I'm providing. Americans and westerners in general are subjected to nonstop propaganda demonizing countries like Russia, Iran, and North Korea. The pro-US side of the story is amply represented in the narratives being disseminated by the US government, the corporate media, and influential think-tanks. By providing the OTHER SIDE of the story, I am contributing some small amount of balance to the discussion.

The Xl
03-23-2018, 03:00 PM
Again, it's your opinion. To some, gay marriage and pot legalization would indicate societal decay. To others it would be considered a positive change. It's subjective based on your own opinions and values.

If crime is the indicator, then society is not in decline as crime is not as prevalent as it was. If a move towards secularism and acceptance is considered decline, then that's a different story.

Some would say that society is changing for the better. Values pertaining to inclusion, to open dialogue, to fair pay for women, for open dialogue about sexual harassment, the environmental impact of our lifestyle, the way we eat or to the way animals are treated have changed. Some would say that's societal progress.

The existence of gays, transgendered people, fair pay for women, and the like and accepting them and treating them as equals isn't a sign of decline. It's when those sorts of things are encouraged, normalized, and even used to attack other people, or when facts are distorted for political and social gain, that's the sign of decay.

Ethereal
03-23-2018, 03:01 PM
Do you, then, consider yourself superior to "most Americans"?

Not at all. In fact, I understand why they're indifferent. It's a byproduct of feeling powerless.

The Xl
03-23-2018, 03:02 PM
What would you call $21 trillion in debt?
The fact that we have a debt on our own fiat currency is the decline, the size of it is irrelevant, as the debt is a complete fraud and quite literally can't be paid off. And when you understand that fact, then you also understand that the decline started 100 years ago, when the bankers gained complete control of the nations currency.

Ethereal
03-23-2018, 03:04 PM
I would call it politicians wanting to get re-elected, by handing out all possible goodies to their constituents.
That's certainly one cause of the debt, but my question is what the debt indicates about the state of the US empire. To me, it's a clear sign of decay and decline.


This is just another reason why I thoroughly oppose The Political Class, and wish for its entire extinction...

The political class thrives on war more than almost anything else. And that's why they are so enamored of war.

The Xl
03-23-2018, 03:05 PM
Status quo means maintaining the existing state of affairs, especially regarding social or political issues. Obama did not maintain the existing state of affairs in several respects and that was his platform. It was based on change and that is what people were endorsing.
Obama was a corporate proxy and maintained the status quo on every issue that mattered. He may have pushed for some essentially meaningless things in areas that didn't hurt his corporate backers financially and the like, but he was your standard bought politician. His hope and change slogan was exactly that, an empty slogan.

pjohns
03-23-2018, 03:06 PM
Trump is the President.

I rest my case.

Would you consider yourself, then, to be a Never Trumper?

Do you suffer tfom TDS (i.e. Trump Derangement Syndrome)?

The Xl
03-23-2018, 03:06 PM
What stupid position?

The reality is that people perceive more danger these days, but in fact there is less.

What's stupid is to hold a position based on your feelings rather than the facts.

Think about that the next time you hear about a shooting or argue for more gun control.

Ethereal
03-23-2018, 03:07 PM
The fact that we have a debt on our own fiat currency is the decline, the size of it is irrelevant, as the debt is a complete fraud and quite literally can't be paid off. And when you understand that fact, then you also understand that the decline started 100 years ago, when the bankers gained complete control of the nations currency.
I'd go back even further than that, but 1913 was definitely a very bad year for America.

Mister D
03-23-2018, 03:08 PM
Thanks, I will check it out.
I'm rather fond the imperial idea. The term "empire" has become associated with oppression and exploitation in the modern era but that 1) does not do justice to the concept of empire and 2) doesn't even do justice to European colonialism from which those negative associations are largely derived.

Is there a US empire? I think that's obvious. Whether it's good or bad depends on your perspective, I suppose.

The Xl
03-23-2018, 03:09 PM
I'd go back even further than that, but 1913 was definitely a very bad year for America.

That's when the battle was ultimately lost.

Ethereal
03-23-2018, 03:10 PM
Would you consider yourself, then, to be a Never Trumper?

Do you suffer tfom TDS (i.e. Trump Derangement Syndrome)?

I'm actually one of Trump's biggest defenders. That said, I can recognize that his presidency is not an indication of a country on the upswing.

Ethereal
03-23-2018, 03:14 PM
I'm rather fond the imperial idea. The term "empire" has become associated with oppression and exploitation in the modern era but that 1) does not do justice to the concept of empire and 2) doesn't even do justice to European colonialism from which those negative associations are largely derived.

Is there a US empire? I think that's obvious. Whether it's good or bad depends on your perspective, I suppose.
I agree. I am being deliberately polemical in my attacks on empire. But I'm always open to a more nuanced discussion of the concept.

Ethereal
03-23-2018, 03:16 PM
That's when the battle was ultimately lost.
I think the battle was lost when the constitution was ratified. It was a counter-revolution that put America on a path towards financialization, industrialization, and centralization. If you read through the warnings of the so-called "anti-federalists", you will see they predicted all of this: the empire, the oppression, the exploitation, the endless fixation on "greatness", the aggrandizement of sectional interests over the general welfare, etc.

Ethereal
03-23-2018, 03:18 PM
A nation which makes greatness its polestar can never be free; beneath national greatness sink individual greatness, honor, wealth and freedom. But though history, experience and reasoning confirm these ideas; yet all-powerful delusion has been able to make the people of every nation lend a helping hand in putting on their own setters and riveting their own chains, and in this service delusion always employs men too great to speak the truth, and yet too powerful to be doubted. Their statements are believed —their projects adopted—their ends answered and the deluded subjects of all this artifice are left to passive obedience through life, and to entail a condition of unqualified non-resistance to a ruined posterity.
--Abraham Bishop

Tahuyaman
03-23-2018, 03:21 PM
It is also probably worth noting that, just following the end of WWII, the US--if it had been so inclined--could have easily played the role of conquerer (over Japan, Germany, and Italy). But it did not. (True, Germany was divided into East Germany and West Germany--a genuflection to Joseph Stalin--and that was a mistake, I believe. But the US certainly did not act as a conquering power.)


That's one of the main points made in the article I posted.

Ethereal
03-23-2018, 03:23 PM
Power always thinks it has a great soul, and vast views, beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all his laws.
--John Adams

Mister D
03-23-2018, 03:36 PM
It is also probably worth noting that, just following the end of WWII, the US--if it had been so inclined--could have easily played the role of conquerer (over Japan, Germany, and Italy). But it did not. (True, Germany was divided into East Germany and West Germany--a genuflection to Joseph Stalin--and that was a mistake, I believe. But the US certainly did not act as a conquering power.)
The US-Soviet condominium in Europe lasted decades during which Europe was an occupied continent.

Tahuyaman
03-23-2018, 03:43 PM
The US-Soviet condominium in Europe lasted decades during which Europe was an occupied continent.

while each nation governed them self and retained their own sovereignty. This "occupation" was mostly an occupation in name only.

Ethereal
03-23-2018, 03:46 PM
The US-Soviet condominium in Europe lasted decades during which Europe was an occupied continent.
You're not allowed to say that.

Mister D
03-23-2018, 03:54 PM
while each nation governed them self and retained their own sovereignty. This "occupation" was mostly an occupation in name only.
Europeans didn't think so. There was a great deal of hostility to the US on both the left and the right.

Mister D
03-23-2018, 03:57 PM
You're not allowed to say that.
The members of their generation usually don't realize that making the nations of Europe into little Americas was (and still is in some respects) deeply resented.

Common Sense
03-23-2018, 04:09 PM
The existence of gays, transgendered people, fair pay for women, and the like and accepting them and treating them as equals isn't a sign of decline. It's when those sorts of things are encouraged, normalized, and even used to attack other people, or when facts are distorted for political and social gain, that's the sign of decay.
Normalization of fair pay, trans people and gays is a sign of decay?

No one is encouraging people to be gay or trans...or attacking anyone with it.

Max Rockatansky
03-23-2018, 04:11 PM
The US-Soviet condominium in Europe lasted decades during which Europe was an occupied continent.
Occupied by the Soviets until the collapse of the USSr. The US only occupied Germany until 1952 (https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/cwr/107189.htm). The US never did anything like the Soviet reaction to Prague Spring or the Brezhnev Doctrine.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/soviets-invade-czechoslovakia
oviet leader Leonid Brezhnev warned Dubcek to halt his reforms, but the Czechoslovakian leader was buoyed by his popularity and dismissed the veiled threats. Dubcek declined to attend a special meeting of the Warsaw Pact powers in July, but on August 2 he agreed to meet with Brezhnev in the Slovakian town of Cierny. The next day, representatives of European Europe’s communist parties met in the Slovakian capital of Bratislava, and a communiquÉ was issued suggesting that pressure would be eased on Czechoslovakia in exchange for tighter control over the press.
However, on the night of August 20, nearly 200,000 Soviet, East German, Polish, Hungarian, and Bulgarian troops invaded Czechoslovakia in the largest deployment of military force in Europe since the end of World War II (https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii). Armed resistance to the invasion was negligible, but protesters immediately took to the streets, tearing down streets signs in an effort to confuse the invaders. In Prague, Warsaw Pact troops moved to seize control of television and radio stations. At Radio Prague, journalists refused to give up the station and some 20 people were killed before it was captured. Other stations went underground and succeeded in broadcasting for several days before their locations were discovered.

Tahuyaman
03-23-2018, 04:24 PM
Normalization of fair pay, trans people and gays is a sign of decay?

No one is encouraging people to be gay or trans...or attacking anyone with it.

Normalizing destructive behavior is sign of decline. Celebrating or normalizing conduct which is indicative of a mental illness is a sign of decline.

Demonizing those who point these things out is a sign of decline.

Common Sense
03-23-2018, 04:30 PM
Normalizing destructive behavior is sign of decline. Celebrating or normalizing conduct which is indicative of a mental illness is a sign of decline.

Demonizing those who point these things out is a sign of decline.

Being gay isn't a mental illness.

Accepting that there always have been and always will be gay people and treating them with respect isn't demonizing those who disagree.

A more inclusive society may seem like a decline to some, but to many its progress.

Max Rockatansky
03-23-2018, 04:44 PM
What's the context? More often then not, the actions of other nations are a cover for the United States to overstep their boundaries. As far as the quality of other nations goes, while the United States is certainly a better place to live than Russia or China, for instance, I'm not worried about their actions and the quality of life of their average citizen or lack thereof, because it doesn't concern me.
The Cold War. Let's not forget that it was the US that disagreed on Europe over the Treaty of Versailles and, to help them avoid that mistake after WWII put forth the Marsha ll Plan; highly controversial at the time due to the cost. We also put into action a similar plan with Japan. We disagreed with the Soviets and their plans for Europe. If you don't know the history of the Soviet occupation of Europe, the Berlin Wall, the Berlin Airlift, Prague Spring and other military actions by the Soviets against their satellite neighbors, perhaps you should look it up.

I tend to agree with you about the living standards of those in communist nations, but when the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China sought to export those living standards to other nations, including US allies and trading partners. we had a legal and ethical right to counter them.

The US isn't perfect and made several mistakes along the way. It's done some bad things fighting communism. However, to only point a finger of blame at the US without the context of why it did those things is to be blind to the truth. Blind to history. Blind to reality.

Max Rockatansky
03-23-2018, 04:46 PM
Being gay isn't a mental illness.

Accepting that there always have been and always will be gay people and treating them with respect isn't demonizing those who disagree.

A more inclusive society may seem like a decline to some, but to many its progress.
Agreed homosexuality isn't a mental illness, but it's not "normal" either. Like being born without hands, Down Syndrome or Tay-Sachs, they can't help who they are and therefore, as you suggested, should be treated with respect. However, let's not forget that what they are is not the norm.

Dr. Who
03-23-2018, 04:51 PM
It is almost as if parents were preparing their children to be adults.

Today we do all we can to infantilize them for as long as possible. Visualize childhood extending to age 26.
We had freedom of movement, but definite chores and other duties as assigned. Summer wasn't all playing, a lot of it was hard work. Since my mother grew up on a farm, she had a much different idea of what hard was, than your average urban dweller and figured girls were just a capable as boys. Summer was project time, whether it involved making concrete, digging, painting, sanding etc and then there was weeding the yard and garden, cutting grass, sawing, chopping/splitting wood for the winter .... we never hired anyone to do anything. We were skinny, strong and too tired to get into trouble.

Ethereal
03-23-2018, 04:52 PM
The members of their generation usually don't realize that making the nations of Europe into little Americas was (and still is in some respects) deeply resented.

Or that it was preceded by the deliberate and widespread bombing of European civilians.

The Xl
03-23-2018, 05:04 PM
Normalization of fair pay, trans people and gays is a sign of decay?

No one is encouraging people to be gay or trans...or attacking anyone with it.

Yes, like preteens and the like being exposed to it in school. Along those lines is what I mean. Glorifying and normalizing it.

Dr. Who
03-23-2018, 05:20 PM
Obama was a corporate proxy and maintained the status quo on every issue that mattered. He may have pushed for some essentially meaningless things in areas that didn't hurt his corporate backers financially and the like, but he was your standard bought politician. His hope and change slogan was exactly that, an empty slogan.
No president can really do very much. The whole system is owned and controlled by money and it's all the same money regardless of political stripe.

The Xl
03-23-2018, 05:22 PM
No president can really do very much. The whole system is owned and controlled by money and it's all the same money regardless of political stripe.
They could at least try. Trump is a megalomaniac billionaire and he's fought better than the rest of them. It's an embarrassment.

The Xl
03-23-2018, 05:23 PM
The Cold War. Let's not forget that it was the US that disagreed on Europe over the Treaty of Versailles and, to help them avoid that mistake after WWII put forth the Marsha ll Plan; highly controversial at the time due to the cost. We also put into action a similar plan with Japan. We disagreed with the Soviets and their plans for Europe. If you don't know the history of the Soviet occupation of Europe, the Berlin Wall, the Berlin Airlift, Prague Spring and other military actions by the Soviets against their satellite neighbors, perhaps you should look it up.

I tend to agree with you about the living standards of those in communist nations, but when the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China sought to export those living standards to other nations, including US allies and trading partners. we had a legal and ethical right to counter them.

The US isn't perfect and made several mistakes along the way. It's done some bad things fighting communism. However, to only point a finger of blame at the US without the context of why it did those things is to be blind to the truth. Blind to history. Blind to reality.
I'm far more interested in the current doings of the United States than I am their past ones, be them successes or blunders.

Common Sense
03-23-2018, 05:28 PM
I'm far more interested in the current doings of the United States than I am their past ones, be them successes or blunders.
The past and present are intertwined. There is no present without the past.

Max Rockatansky
03-23-2018, 05:37 PM
The past and present are intertwined. There is no present without the past.
Agreed. The world, especially the Third World, is still shaking out the results of the end of the Cold War. LWers still rant and rave about military expenditures, but as the chart below proves, they oversaw the biggest cuts in the military budget and downsizing of the military since WWII.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f4/US_military_personnel_and_expenditures.png/1280px-US_military_personnel_and_expenditures.png

Dr. Who
03-23-2018, 05:40 PM
They could at least try. Trump is a megalomaniac billionaire and he's fought better than the rest of them. It's an embarrassment.
Up until the point of levying tariffs, he hasn't been doing anything that would impinge on their profits. Let's wait and see how much rope they give him before they reel him in.

Max Rockatansky
03-23-2018, 05:41 PM
I'm far more interested in the current doings of the United States than I am their past ones, be them successes or blunders.
Of course the present is important as well as the future, but in order to understand many present actions, we have to understand the past just as George Santayana advised.

"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Max Rockatansky
03-23-2018, 05:48 PM
Up until the point of levying tariffs, he hasn't been doing anything that would impinge on their profits. Let's wait and see how much rope they give him before they reel him in.
Agreed. There are valid reasons for tariffs, but whether or not it's the best way to go remains to be seen.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/22/politics/donald-trump-china-tariffs-trade-war/index.html
The investigation concluded that China has stolen or coerced US companies into turning over their intellectual property through a series of state-run structural maneuvers, including its requirement that foreign companies partner with Chinese companies to access the Chinese market, said Everett Eissenstat, the deputy director of the National Economic Council for international economic affairs.

The investigation also assessed that China has stolen US intellectual property by hacking US computer networks, though senior administration officials said Thursday's tariffs would not account for the value of that intellectual property theft, which they estimated to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

The incoming tariffs are the most significant to date from a President who campaigned on a promise to correct the US' global trade imbalance, particularly with China, and to revitalize US manufacturing. The move is just the latest sign that Trump is intent on putting his protectionist rhetoric into action despite concerns from economists and financial analysts, including within his own administration.

MisterVeritis
03-23-2018, 05:57 PM
Up until the point of levying tariffs, he hasn't been doing anything that would impinge on their profits. Let's wait and see how much rope they give him before they reel him in.
President Trump is done. He finished himself today.

Dr. Who
03-23-2018, 06:00 PM
Agreed. There are valid reasons for tariffs, but whether or not it's the best way to go remains to be seen.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/22/politics/donald-trump-china-tariffs-trade-war/index.html
The investigation concluded that China has stolen or coerced US companies into turning over their intellectual property through a series of state-run structural maneuvers, including its requirement that foreign companies partner with Chinese companies to access the Chinese market, said Everett Eissenstat, the deputy director of the National Economic Council for international economic affairs.

The investigation also assessed that China has stolen US intellectual property by hacking US computer networks, though senior administration officials said Thursday's tariffs would not account for the value of that intellectual property theft, which they estimated to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

The incoming tariffs are the most significant to date from a President who campaigned on a promise to correct the US' global trade imbalance, particularly with China, and to revitalize US manufacturing. The move is just the latest sign that Trump is intent on putting his protectionist rhetoric into action despite concerns from economists and financial analysts, including within his own administration.
My guess would be that he will eventually back off of all western nations but may be allowed to increase tariffs on China because it's out of scope for the most part, where globalist interests are concerned. More expensive Chinese imports will affect the least well-off Americans the most so depending on its impact, there could be political repercussions from the masses.

Mister D
03-23-2018, 07:45 PM
Occupied by the Soviets until the collapse of the USSr. The US only occupied Germany until 1952 (https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/cwr/107189.htm). The US never did anything like the Soviet reaction to Prague Spring or the Brezhnev Doctrine.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/soviets-invade-czechoslovakia
oviet leader Leonid Brezhnev warned Dubcek to halt his reforms, but the Czechoslovakian leader was buoyed by his popularity and dismissed the veiled threats. Dubcek declined to attend a special meeting of the Warsaw Pact powers in July, but on August 2 he agreed to meet with Brezhnev in the Slovakian town of Cierny. The next day, representatives of European Europe’s communist parties met in the Slovakian capital of Bratislava, and a communiquÉ was issued suggesting that pressure would be eased on Czechoslovakia in exchange for tighter control over the press.
However, on the night of August 20, nearly 200,000 Soviet, East German, Polish, Hungarian, and Bulgarian troops invaded Czechoslovakia in the largest deployment of military force in Europe since the end of World War II (https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii). Armed resistance to the invasion was negligible, but protesters immediately took to the streets, tearing down streets signs in an effort to confuse the invaders. In Prague, Warsaw Pact troops moved to seize control of television and radio stations. At Radio Prague, journalists refused to give up the station and some 20 people were killed before it was captured. Other stations went underground and succeeded in broadcasting for several days before their locations were discovered.

The US has military bases in around 60 or 70 countries right now. Certainly that's not to maintain a liberal world order.

US propagandists also have a habit of justifying our imperialism by pointing to the Soviets. There's a certain realism to that. I agree. That said, American military and especially cultural and economic hegemony has been and is resented all over the world. They don't hate us because "freedom". They hate us because we keep shoving our debased consumer culture and materialism down their throats.

Mister D
03-23-2018, 07:53 PM
Of course the present is important as well as the future, but in order to understand many present actions, we have to understand the past just as George Santayana advised.

"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."



I am not a conservative in the sense of being afraid of revolutions, like Hobbes, or thinking order, in the sense of peace, the highest good; and I am not at all attached to things as they are, or as they were in my youth. But I love order in the sense of organized, harmonious, consecrated living: and for this reason I sympathize with the Soviets and Fascists and the Catholics, but not at all with the liberals. I should sympathize with the Nazis too, if their system were, even in theory, founded on reality; but it is Nietzschean, founded on Will: and therefore a sort of romanticism gone mad, rather than a serious organization of material forces—which would be the only way, I think, of securing moral coherence. . . .I hope that (the Soviets) may succeed in establishing a great new order of society, definite, traditional and self-justified.

George Santayana

Dr. Who
03-23-2018, 08:00 PM
The US has military bases in around 60 or 70 countries right now. Certainly that's not to maintain a liberal world order.

US propagandists also have a habit of justifying our imperialism by pointing to the Soviets. There's a certain realism to that. I agree. That said, American military and especially cultural and economic hegemony has been and is resented all over the world. They don't hate us because "freedom". They hate us because we keep shoving our debased consumer culture and materialism down their throats.

Very true. I interact with Europeans quite a bit and they like to visit the US for the experience, but most are averse to actually having to live in the US. They'd sooner be transferred to Singapore than America. They find the culture totally alien - it values money over people and that is reflected in cities that are dedicated to the car - few people-friendly spaces, a fast-food and gun culture and bad schools, not to mention the crime. Material acquisition is not the most important thing to the majority of Europeans. Having a nice life and enjoying family and friends is. They don't mind shopping for food every day and living in a small apartment, so long as they can have nice vacations and see the world.

Peter1469
03-23-2018, 08:04 PM
Our schools are not bad outside of poor neighborhoods.

Mister D
03-23-2018, 08:10 PM
Very true. I interact with Europeans quite a bit and they like to visit the US for the experience, but most are averse to actually having to live in the US. They'd sooner be transferred to Singapore than America. They find the culture totally alien - it values money over people and that is reflected in cities that are dedicated to the car - few people-friendly spaces, a fast-food and gun culture and bad schools, not to mention the crime. Material acquisition is not the most important thing to the majority of Europeans. Having a nice life and enjoying family and friends is. They don't mind shopping for food every day and living in a small apartment, so long as they can have nice vacations and see the world.
The proliferation of North American lifestyles is one of the cardinal features of globalization. We don't perceive this phenomenon as imperialism because it doesn't involve tanks and military parades.

Mister D
03-23-2018, 08:11 PM
Our schools are not bad outside of poor neighborhoods.
Agreed.

Ethereal
03-23-2018, 10:44 PM
Very true. I interact with Europeans quite a bit and they like to visit the US for the experience, but most are averse to actually having to live in the US. They'd sooner be transferred to Singapore than America. They find the culture totally alien - it values money over people and that is reflected in cities that are dedicated to the car - few people-friendly spaces, a fast-food and gun culture and bad schools, not to mention the crime. Material acquisition is not the most important thing to the majority of Europeans. Having a nice life and enjoying family and friends is. They don't mind shopping for food every day and living in a small apartment, so long as they can have nice vacations and see the world.
That's because when they visit America, they tend to visit big cities. Suburban and rural America have lower crime, better schools, more space for people to relax, and a stronger sense of community.

Incidentally, America's big cities are all governed by "liberal" Democrats.

Ethereal
03-23-2018, 10:49 PM
The proliferation of North American lifestyles is one of the cardinal features of globalization. We don't perceive this phenomenon as imperialism because it doesn't involve tanks and military parades.

Not overtly. At least, not anymore. But they are always there, looming in the background.

The Xl
03-23-2018, 10:51 PM
The past and present are intertwined. There is no present without the past.

That may be true in some instances, but that's usually an excuse.

Dr. Who
03-23-2018, 11:05 PM
That's because when they visit America, they tend to visit big cities. Suburban and rural America have lower crime, better schools, more space for people to relax, and a stronger sense of community.

Incidentally, America's big cities are all governed by "liberal" Democrats.
Well in the case of the people I know, they often take transfers to other countries, but the business we work for only locates itself in prominent locations so rural America is not even a possibility. I'm not sure that they would be happy with that either. Rural America is not exactly culturally advanced. These are urban people, not farmers. Just an anecdote, but our local CEO who is from Europe, did a tour of the rural east coast and was offended by the amount of road kill that he saw in his travels.

Peter1469
03-23-2018, 11:13 PM
Well in the case of the people I know, they often take transfers to other countries, but the business we work for only locates itself in prominent locations so rural America is not even a possibility. I'm not sure that they would be happy with that either. Rural America is not exactly culturally advanced. These are urban people, not farmers. Just an anecdote, but our local CEO who is from Europe, did a tour of the rural east coast and was offended by the amount of road kill that he saw in his travels.
Much of Europe looks like middle America just a lot older.

Dr. Who
03-23-2018, 11:20 PM
Much of Europe looks like middle America just a lot older.

It's also not a big attraction to the city folk. They drive through it on the way to other cities. The dynamic between rural and urban citizens is similar in Europe. Rural people tend to be more conservative and urban people more liberal. Urban people think that rural people are yahoos.

Peter1469
03-23-2018, 11:21 PM
It's also not a big attraction to the city folk. They drive through it on the way to other cities. The dynamic between rural and urban citizens is similar in Europe. Rural people tend to be more conservative and urban people more liberal. Urban people think that rural people are yahoos.

I agree.

Max Rockatansky
03-24-2018, 07:42 AM
The proliferation of North American lifestyles is one of the cardinal features of globalization. We don't perceive this phenomenon as imperialism because it doesn't involve tanks and military parades.
OMFG. You are seriously claiming that the US is an empire because Hollwood exports movies? Caligula is laughing his ass off in Hades.

Max Rockatansky
03-24-2018, 07:52 AM
Well in the case of the people I know, they often take transfers to other countries, but the business we work for only locates itself in prominent locations so rural America is not even a possibility. I'm not sure that they would be happy with that either. Rural America is not exactly culturally advanced. These are urban people, not farmers. Just an anecdote, but our local CEO who is from Europe, did a tour of the rural east coast and was offended by the amount of road kill that he saw in his travels.
The difference between rural Europe and rural America is there is a vastly larger amount of rural in America.

http://francistapon.com/images/travels/europe/usa/900/TEXAS.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/qe6ci1U.png
https://mwlibertyfest.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/us-pop-dist.gif?w=780
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4712/25315266197_4af4c5189e_b.jpg

MMC
03-24-2018, 07:57 AM
Time to start colonizing other planets. Space the final frontier. To boldly go where no one has gone.

Leave the rest in the dust and take control of the destiny.

donttread
03-24-2018, 08:15 AM
Time to start colonizing other planets. Space the final frontier. To boldly go where no one has gone.



Leave the rest in the dust and take control of the destiny.

Still too expensive, except for the ruling class, and there are only a couple compatiable planets in the Solar System

Max Rockatansky
03-24-2018, 08:23 AM
Still too expensive, except for the ruling class, and there are only a couple compatiable planets in the Solar System
The "ruling class" are tourists, not colonists.

We'd have to develop the tech to colonize space and planets. The same tech will be applied so that all those who want to sit in their 5X10 government-supplied cubicle, play guitar and smoke pot all day will be able to do so.

MMC
03-24-2018, 08:33 AM
Still too expensive, except for the ruling class, and there are only a couple compatiable planets in the Solar System
Time to start collecting those IOUs from all over the planet. Cmon we can give the leftness a whole planet to themselves and sit back and watch how they fuck it up in less than 50 years and let them go extinct. Plus we would save a whole helluva lot of money.

Max Rockatansky
03-24-2018, 08:53 AM
The colonization of the Americas, especially the English parts, are indicative of the range of human beings who are ready to risk everything for a better life and those who are content to sit in their hovels and beg for government-supplied bowls of gruel.

MMC
03-24-2018, 09:08 AM
The colonization of the Americas, especially the English parts, are indicative of the range of human beings who are ready to risk everything for a better life and those who are content to sit in their hovels and beg for government-supplied bowls of gruel.
The Empire started to crumble when we decided that we wouldn't take any land from others. Which leaves us with colonizing other planets. Need to grow, expand.

Or give up that policy about taking from others. Start a conflict with us. Then know you will become part of the Empire. That's all there is to it. Especially for those that are concerned with the Crumbling of the US.

Time for the Empire to Strike Back.

Max Rockatansky
03-24-2018, 09:13 AM
The Empire started to crumble when we decided that we wouldn't take any land from others. Which leaves us with colonizing other planets. Need to grow, expand.

Or give up that policy about taking from others. Start a conflict with us. Then know you will become part of the Empire. That's all there is to it. Especially for those that are concerned with the Crumbling of the US.

Time for the Empire to Strike Back.
The British Empire? There's a reason all the bad guys in Star Wars speak with an english accent. :)

MMC
03-24-2018, 09:20 AM
The British Empire? There's a reason all the bad guys in Star Wars speak with an english accent. :)



:laugh:

Well some are under the impression that we are an Empire. One that is crumbling. :grin:

Max Rockatansky
03-24-2018, 09:33 AM
:laugh:

Well some are under the impression that we are an Empire. One that is crumbling. :grin:Delusion is their problem. :D

MMC
03-24-2018, 09:42 AM
Delusion is their problem. :D


Well to stop the crumble.....they have to understand that means doing something they don't want to do. Which is go to war and take land and resources. Or spend money and take other planets. Either way it will cost.


China owes the United States $1.3 trillion, which is the most debt out of all the countries that are its debtors. Japan was the primary debt holder until 2008, but now comes in second place, with $1.2 trillion. Other countries with outstanding U.S. debt include Russia, India and South Korea.
What countries owe the United States money? | … (https://www.reference.com/business-finance/countries-owe-united-states-money-c8a9d17fb4fdea74)
www.reference.com/business-finance/countries-owe-united-states-money-c8a9d17fb4fd…

Dr. Who
03-24-2018, 11:05 AM
The difference between rural Europe and rural America is there is a vastly larger amount of rural in America.

That too. In Europe, you are rarely more than an hour or two from some kind of a city and their rural areas are far more populated than those in America.

pjohns
03-24-2018, 12:18 PM
Everyone thinks where they live is great, but as someone pointed out - Americans should wonder at why the USA has so many enemies around the world.
It is a reasonable point.

It deserves a reasonable response.

In the cases of Russia and China, it is probably because their leaders wish for their respective nations to be The Great Power in a unipolar world.

In the cases of Iran and North Korea, it is probably because of the grandiose dreams of their respective nations' leaders; and especially so in the latter case.

pjohns
03-24-2018, 12:32 PM
Will Americans ever come to terms with the horrific violence and chaos the US government inflicts on innocent foreigners?
For those who do not either see America through rose-colored glasses, or through jaundiced eyes, there are really just two options: either to view America as (1) basically a good and benevolent nation, with a few flaws; or (2) basically an evil nation, with a few good points.

It seems clear that you have chosen the latter...

pjohns
03-24-2018, 12:38 PM
The Russians aren't his problem. It isn't their policy that effects him.

True.

But I believe that it is wise to compare the US to other countries--not to some abstract ideal...

Mister D
03-24-2018, 12:50 PM
For those who do not either see America through rose-colored glasses, or through jaundiced eyes, there are really just two options: either to view America as (1) basically a good and benevolent nation, with a few flaws; or (2) basically an evil nation, with a few good points.

It seems clear that you have chosen the latter...

With all due respect, sir, that's a false dichotomy.

Mister D
03-24-2018, 12:53 PM
I don't believe that the US was just like the USSR in every respect. That said, the US was exactly like the USSR in so far as it sought to impose its system on the post-war world. We weren't fighting proxy wars all over the world for "liberty" and the good of mankind.

pjohns
03-24-2018, 01:02 PM
[Kim Jung-un's] words happen to be true.
Okayyyyyy...


No, it doesn't. You are misrepresenting the position of the North Korean government. Any attack against America would be conditional, i.e., if we attack them, then they will attack us. You left that condition out in order to give the impression that the North Korean government wants to launch an unprovoked attack on America, which simply isn't the case.

It might be helpful if you would read this: https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/612526/north-korea-emp-threat-attack-United-States-electromagnetic-pulse-satellite-cold-war-Trump


Any attack on the US would be suicidal.
Yes, it would be.

So no rational person would do it.

Well, I guess that leaves out Little Kim, huh?


North Korea withdrew from that treaty in 2003.
Yes, it did.

Does that make it (somehow) more ethical for its leader to develop nuclear weapons to use as blackmail?


I didn't realize that "flaunting" nuclear weapons was the standard for determining a country's right to possess them. You learn something new everyday.

It is the "standard" for common decency.

As for "the right" to possess nuclear weapons, every country that is not a signatory to the NPT has that "right." Yet it is enormously immoral to pursue that right, in order to blackmail other nations.


But as I already pointed out, the existence of a capability does not necessarily imply any intent to use it.

No, it does not.

For that, we would need to scrutinize Little Kim's own words...


Moreover, the US also possesses such capabilities, so why is it okay for the US but not okay for Russia?
When did I ever say that it is "not okay" for Russia to have nukes? (They were, after all, one of the five countries grandfathered in, under the NPT.)

pjohns
03-24-2018, 01:06 PM
Balance is exactly what I'm providing. Americans and westerners in general are subjected to nonstop propaganda demonizing countries like Russia, Iran, and North Korea. The pro-US side of the story is amply represented in the narratives being disseminated by the US government, the corporate media, and influential think-tanks. By providing the OTHER SIDE of the story, I am contributing some small amount of balance to the discussion.
Is it your opinion, then, that "balance" may be achieved by countering the prevailing view with a far-leftist view?

pjohns
03-24-2018, 01:08 PM
I understand why [Americans are] indifferent. It's a byproduct of feeling powerless.

Do you not consider this to be just a wee bit condescending?

pjohns
03-24-2018, 01:15 PM
The political class thrives on war more than almost anything else. And that's why they are so enamored of war.

Whatever.

The best thing that may be said about Donald Trump, I think--the very best thing--is that he is not a part of The Political Class.

I strongly wish that all 435 representatives, and all 100 senators, were doctors, lawyers, plumbers, carpenters, electricians--people who were making a sacrifice by going to Washington, thereby taking a detour from their career paths--and not career politicians...

pjohns
03-24-2018, 03:38 PM
Or that it was preceded by the deliberate and widespread bombing of European civilians.

Are you referring to Dresden?

In any case, I really do not know what you may mean by "widespread"...

pjohns
03-24-2018, 03:45 PM
Up until the point of levying tariffs, [Donald Trump] hasn't been doing anything that would impinge on their profits. Let's wait and see how much rope they give him before they reel him in.

I like many of Donald Trump's policies--although it is hard for me to warm up to his personality and demeanor. So I give him a split verdict: I am neither a Trump lover nor a Trump hater.

That said, I think he is something of a maverick; and, as a billionaire, he simply cannot be bought. So I rather doubt that he can be "reel[ed] in."

pjohns
03-24-2018, 03:57 PM
Rural America is not exactly culturally advanced.
What, exactly, is your definition of "culturally advanced"?

Does it require taking in the opera and/or the ballet?

Note: I live in a town of only about 130,000; and I do not consider myself to be thereby culturally disadvantaged, according to my own definition of the matter.

Max Rockatansky
03-24-2018, 04:02 PM
Are you referring to Dresden?

In any case, I really do not know what you may mean by "widespread"...He's trying to avoid mentioning Stalin's purges and the murders of 39 million Russians or the atrocities of the Germans beginning with Guernica just so he can slam the United States. He also trying really, really hard for everyone to forget that it was the Brits who favored night, wide area attacks and it was the Americans who favored daylight precision bombing with a consequential much greater loss of aircrews.

http://pippaettore.com/Horrific_WWII_Statistics.html

Almost 1,000 Army planes disappeared en route from the US to foreign locations. But an eye-watering 43,581 aircraft were lost overseas including 22,948 on combat missions (18,418 against the Western Axis) and 20,633 attributed to non-combat causes overseas.

In a single 376 plane raid in August 1943, 60 B-17s were shot down. That was a 16 percent loss rate and meant 600 empty bunks in England .. In 1942-43 it was statistically impossible for bomber crews to complete a 25-mission tour in Europe .

Pacific theatre losses were far less (4,530 in combat) owing to smaller forces committed.. The worst B-29 mission, against Tokyo on May 25, 1945, cost 26 Superfortresses, 5.6 percent of the 464 dispatched from the Marianas..

On average, 6,600 American servicemen died per month during WWII, about 220 a day. By the end of the war, over 40,000 airmen were killed in combat theatres and another 18,000 wounded. Some 12,000 missing men were declared dead, including a number "liberated" by the Soviets but never returned. More than 41,000 were captured, half of the 5,400 held by the Japanese died in captivity, compared with one-tenth in German hands. Total combat casualties were pegged at 121,867.

US manpower made up the deficit. The AAF's peak strength was reached in 1944 with 2,372,000 personnel, nearly twice the previous year's figure.

The losses were huge---but so were production totals. From 1941 through 1945, American industry deliveredmore than 276,000 military aircraft. That number was enough not only for US Army, Navy and Marine Corps, but for allies as diverse as Britain, Australia, China and Russia. In fact, from 1943 onward, America produced more planes than Britain and Russia combined. And more than Germany and Japan together 1941-45.

However, our enemies took massive losses. Through much of 1944, the Luftwaffe sustained uncontrolled hemorrhaging, reaching 25 percent of aircrews and 40 planes a month. And in late 1944 into 1945, nearly half the pilots in Japanese squadrons had flown fewer than 200 hours. The disparity of two years before had been completely reversed.

Max Rockatansky
03-24-2018, 04:07 PM
With all due respect, sir, that's a false dichotomy.

Yet clearly you have chosen the latter option. Why?

Mister D
03-24-2018, 04:11 PM
Are you referring to Dresden?

In any case, I really do not know what you may mean by "widespread"...

He means that the strategic bombing of Germany and Japan resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of old men, women and children. It was vicious, criminal and strategically pointless. That's just a fact. Was it the Holocaust? No. Does that make it justified? No.

Max Rockatansky
03-24-2018, 04:12 PM
What, exactly, is your definition of "culturally advanced"?

Does it require taking in the opera and/or the ballet?

Note: I live in a town of only about 130,000; and I do not consider myself to be thereby culturally disadvantaged, according to my own definition of the matter.
I'd like to know the answer too. It's funny how snobs try to hide their snobbery. They'll bitch and moan about rednecks then clink glasses of expensive French chardonnay over the plight of Native Americans...despite the fact Native American culture is as redneck as you can get...and I'm not making a joke about redskins.

Mister D
03-24-2018, 04:12 PM
Yet clearly you have chosen the latter option. Why?

I have no idea what you;re talking about, Max. You have a habit of making things up as you go along. You consistently employ straw man arguments.

Mister D
03-24-2018, 04:14 PM
He's trying to avoid mentioning Stalin's purges and the murders of 39 million Russians or the atrocities of the Germans beginning with Guernica just so he can slam the United States. He also trying really, really hard for everyone to forget that it was the Brits who favored night, wide area attacks and it was the Americans who favored daylight precision bombing with a consequential much greater loss of aircrews.

http://pippaettore.com/Horrific_WWII_Statistics.html

Almost 1,000 Army planes disappeared en route from the US to foreign locations. But an eye-watering 43,581 aircraft were lost overseas including 22,948 on combat missions (18,418 against the Western Axis) and 20,633 attributed to non-combat causes overseas.

In a single 376 plane raid in August 1943, 60 B-17s were shot down. That was a 16 percent loss rate and meant 600 empty bunks in England .. In 1942-43 it was statistically impossible for bomber crews to complete a 25-mission tour in Europe .

Pacific theatre losses were far less (4,530 in combat) owing to smaller forces committed.. The worst B-29 mission, against Tokyo on May 25, 1945, cost 26 Superfortresses, 5.6 percent of the 464 dispatched from the Marianas..

On average, 6,600 American servicemen died per month during WWII, about 220 a day. By the end of the war, over 40,000 airmen were killed in combat theatres and another 18,000 wounded. Some 12,000 missing men were declared dead, including a number "liberated" by the Soviets but never returned. More than 41,000 were captured, half of the 5,400 held by the Japanese died in captivity, compared with one-tenth in German hands. Total combat casualties were pegged at 121,867.

US manpower made up the deficit. The AAF's peak strength was reached in 1944 with 2,372,000 personnel, nearly twice the previous year's figure.

The losses were huge---but so were production totals. From 1941 through 1945, American industry deliveredmore than 276,000 military aircraft. That number was enough not only for US Army, Navy and Marine Corps, but for allies as diverse as Britain, Australia, China and Russia. In fact, from 1943 onward, America produced more planes than Britain and Russia combined. And more than Germany and Japan together 1941-45.

However, our enemies took massive losses. Through much of 1944, the Luftwaffe sustained uncontrolled hemorrhaging, reaching 25 percent of aircrews and 40 planes a month. And in late 1944 into 1945, nearly half the pilots in Japanese squadrons had flown fewer than 200 hours. The disparity of two years before had been completely reversed.

US bombers incinerated German civilians and did so purposely. US bombers and Us bombers alone incinerated Japanese civilians.

Max Rockatansky
03-24-2018, 04:21 PM
US bombers incinerated German civilians and did so purposely. US bombers and Us bombers alone incinerated Japanese civilians.
Your hate for the United States is clear. Yes, that happened, but you fail to mention the US did what it could to minimize civilian casualties while the Germans, Japanese and even the Brits took more effort to protect their own and kill anyone who opposed them. Why do you fail to take WWII into perspective? Into context? Why do you simply love blasting the USA as murdering assholes committing atrocities all over the world?

Max Rockatansky
03-24-2018, 04:23 PM
I have no idea what you;re talking about, Max. You have a habit of making things up as you go along. You consistently employ straw man arguments.
What things do you claim I'm making up? What straw man arguments are you claiming I'm making?

This isn't the first time you've rushed in to defend your friend Ethereal, but I'm curious about why you do.

Mister D
03-24-2018, 04:24 PM
Your hate for the United States is clear. Yes, that happened, but you fail to mention the US did what it could to minimize civilian casualties while the Germans, Japanese and even the Brits took more effort to protect their own and kill anyone who opposed them. Why do you fail to take WWII into perspective? Into context? Why do you simply love blasting the USA as murdering $#@!s committing atrocities all over the world?
lol "Yes, that happened" ends our argument. Now we might want to know why you feel compelled to justify the wholesale butchery of civilian populations? What kind of person would do that?


See I can do that too, max. :)

Mister D
03-24-2018, 04:27 PM
What things do you claim I'm making up? What straw man arguments are you claiming I'm making?

This isn't the first time you've rushed in to defend your friend Ethereal, but I'm curious about why you do.
You also have a habit of playing stupid, Max. You know exactly what I'm talking about. Why do you do that? Is it in the hope that the comments will piel up and no one will notice that you make shit up?

If I was rushing I would have been involved much earlier. Why do you keep trying to distract everyone?

Mister D
03-24-2018, 04:40 PM
Well in the case of the people I know, they often take transfers to other countries, but the business we work for only locates itself in prominent locations so rural America is not even a possibility. I'm not sure that they would be happy with that either. Rural America is not exactly culturally advanced. These are urban people, not farmers. Just an anecdote, but our local CEO who is from Europe, did a tour of the rural east coast and was offended by the amount of road kill that he saw in his travels.
While I generally sympathize with the conservative or traditionalist critique of American society there are some aspects of European anti-Americanism that are just plain ignorant. What do you say to people who think the character of Homer Simpson captures something essential about the average American? I suspect such attitudes are more a product of television and media than actual experience.

But my objection is more with conservative intellectuals who claim that the US has never had any vibrant intellectual or artistic life.

Max Rockatansky
03-24-2018, 04:40 PM
You also have a habit of playing stupid, Max. You know exactly what I'm talking about. Why do you do that? Is it in the hope that the comments will piel up and no one will notice that you make shit up?
If I was rushing I would have been involved much earlier. Why do you keep trying to distract everyone?Yet you are unable to articulate the exact accusation you are making. All you can do is accuse.

You claim I'm a liar and a fabricator yet you refused to prove your case using evidence. Why?

Here's something I think most people will know about me compared to you, your little buddy Ethereal and me: I post lots of links backing up my opinions with facts. You two not so much.

Mister D
03-24-2018, 04:42 PM
Yet you are unable to articulate the exact accusation you are making. All you can do is accuse.

You claim I'm a liar and a fabricator yet you refused to prove your case using evidence. Why?

Here's something I think most people will know about me compared to you, your little buddy Ethereal and me: I post lots of links backing up my opinions with facts. You two not so much.
You're just embarrassing yourself now, Max.