Roman and American Empire...

Falstaff

My son and I were watching the history channel, and he mentioned the English production of a show on Rome on that compared Rome and the fall of Rome to America, and even went so far as to use film footage of the Gulf war with American Troops intermingled with short clips of dramatized combat by Roman soldiers. The message was abundantly clear really, that the U.S. and Rome were very similiar in its approach and methods of forcing its policies on the world. I was interested in why the movie producer chose the United States, but more so in the analogies that were drawn from the historical perspective. The show went so far as to insist that eventually America would become a crumbling empire as Rome was. Does anyone feel the same way. I personally dont believe the comparisons of America and Rome are valid at all.
http://www.historychannel.com/rome/

CDsDontBurn

TBH. Every empire that was once thought "unbeatable" has fallen. I don't think that America will fall anytime in our lifetimes, but i wouldn't be surprised if it would happen.

SFOSOK

When America Falls it will take the rest of the world along with it.

Falstaff

I believe that America is the culmination of all the best and the greatest things about the rest of the world. If we are an empire as the radical islamists believe and that we are truly infidels and should fall, then I can see their viewpoint based on the power that we enjoy worldwide..

SFOSOK

Never thought about it that way, thanks for the insight. America may be the world "bully" but without it every country will be left with their thumbs up their asses. We could have been a nuetral country (though very unlikely) but we extend our help to our fellow man regardless of nationality and citizenship. And for all those who think we should not get in other countries business. Thing is, alot of countries have it much worse than us, it is our duty to help other countries because we are so blessed. America is the only real action country I've seen in my lifetime. Just something to think about next time we have another world genocide like Sadam gassing the Kurds (I think thats who it was). By the way, has that little bugger died yet?

Falstaff

America has been nuetral on a number of occasions, but we have assumed the role as the vanguard of liberty.

md5

America has been neutral while a world war erupted around it, only to participate when it was attacked (Pearl Harbor). I'm not sure why you guys consider yourselves "blessed". You are many united nations, which is good because a lot of power comes when people are united, but it's no way "blessed". We europeans try to achieve that with the EU, but it's much harder because of the different languages, religions and cultures.

If America falls by its own doing, it won't take the rest of the world with it. The world is not US, US is just a small portion of this planet.

Plus, America is not the "the culmination of all the best and the greatest things about the rest of the world" nation of this planet. You guys have got many good things, but many bad too. E.g. not everyone likes laws that allow people to carry guns around "for protection". Plus, medical charges are very high, many people can't afford to be treated in US (which is not the case in many other countries). Some people are even considering to remove many parts of US and world history altogether from schools:

US couldn't even set an example as "the best country" when it couldn't take care of it's own people in new Orleans. Yes, it was a tragedy, but what happened after this can barely be described as an example of "the best and greatest country in the world".

America doesn't sound like a vanguard of liberty to me. People that are considered to be "enemies" of US (because of their political beliefs) end up locked in Guantanamo for ever. Not even the UN likes the way that these people are treated in this prison. There's even the "Anti-Terrorism Act", which ensures US citizens' freedom by ensuring the FBI's ability to examine their activities. People's suitcases are scrutinized for "Anti-Americanism" items . Oregon teachers were kicked out of an Oct. 14 Medford Bush rally for wearing T-shirts saying, "Protect Our Civil Liberties" . That sounds more like oppresion than liberty to me .

There are also some famous quotes like: "In order to fight terrorism, we must cause it" - Donald Rumsfeld. Also, "I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace" - George Bush. All these quotes remind me of the oppresive government in Orwell's 1984 (a very good book - definitely worth reading).

Most of the battles US fought were for its own profit. Every single one of them. I still remember the countless warheads with depleted uranium that were dumped in Yugoslavia (and Iraq, of course). Plus, Iraq does have an abundance of oil and didn't have any weapons of mass destruction - but hey, it's cool when US has weapons of mass destruction... enough said. When people from other nations die in wars from americans it's "an american victory". When americans lose wars THEY started (like Vietnam) it's a "tragedy". So, tell me, what is the difference between the ex-dicator Saddam and Fidel Castro? Isn't Fidel Castro a nasty dictator as well? Why is he still around then? Maybe because he serves the interests of US if he stays there?

While you're pondering all of this, enjoy a victory beer with freedom fries

I didn't mean to start this US bashing, but I couldn't help it either with the things I've read in this thread. What I want to say is: America is not as good as Fox news makes it to be. It's not a bad country, but it's not the greatest, either.

Falstaff

I grew up overseas and for many years my teaching was conducted by europeans that had a decidedly different view of the U.S. History, however they did enlighten me as to the imperialist doctrine of the former presidents and of course the near extinction of native culture.

BWX

Rome didn't have nukes. The US will never be "defeated".. Nor will any other major world power with nukes. (Russia, China, etc)
Nukes make ALL the difference.

Even if Terrorist could detonate a nuke inside the US, (not an ICBM, a smuggled in type)- it would not "destroy" us.. It would kill a lot of us, destroy the people who we THINK detonated it.


My personal believe is that the US as we all know it will not be defeated, but absorbed willingly by a global power. At least the government at the time will do it willingly, I doubt most of the people will feel the same, but it will be out of the majority's control. Oh, and it will be for our own good I am sure.. In with a bang, out with a whimper. Just a hunch.

Falstaff

What bothers me is that the real conflict will begin soon, on a global scale with India and China, they have achieved tremendous economic power.

Pompey

I dont think America will ever be 'defeated'. It will retreat into the background along with Europe as India and China move up.

Comparing America with Rome is ridiculous. If it was similar to Rome Canada wouldnt exist now.

TJ-

A natural disaster could destroy america. Look at what happened to New orleans. What if that happened to the whole country...

America is not indestrctible!

Sandok

Global Warming will one day... GO Watch the day after tomorrow

Falstaff

If the current trend towards using fossil fuels is not throttled and alternative forms of energy embraced we shall the see the worlds climate become warmer. I predict that in fact a major calamity such as a large volcanic explosion is imminent.

Sandok

That has nothing to do with global warming or usage of fossil fuels... Weather will either turn colder or warmer (all depends on the currents of the ocean and their modifications) and weather will become MORE extreme.

Falstaff

Its a great deal more complicated than that. Because of our pursuit of oil and our desire to maintain the link between the oil producing nations and our own growth and demand we have an umbilicus to nations that are vulnerable to international terrorism, intrigue and we are not the only ones. America has been more successful in terms of the amount of influence and control over the worlds oil market, but that influence is waining.

I believe America is really just a strange dichotomy of the democratic dream and the hunger for wealth. Our captains of industry during the turn of the last century were perhaps like royalty. Several of our greatest presidents had imperialistic motives for wars and struggles along our borders and across the oceans. In fact I believe that the second world war was a direct result of our own inept foreign policy. We literally stumbled into WWII because we were following and very old and cumbersome form of diplomacy. My country was being run by Men of great wealth that wanted pieces of the rest of the nations of the world that had not been exploited yet.

In fact the recent debacle and 4 disasters in New Orleans are a symptom of a terrible philosophy of economic and racial discrimination, and this in one of the richest countries in the world.

Our prison system, our wars and our own constitution beg questions from our own government that cannot be easily answered.

The things if you will that made us so strong long ago make us weak and vulnerable now.

I dont agree with the foreign policy of the last three presidents or technically four, the reason is that economic interests as well as security interests fuel the discussions and power the concessions and comprimises we make with corrupt leaders and countries the world over.

Are we not like Rome?

Excerpt from a BBC radio program:



America: An empire to rival Rome?


In a new six-part series entitled Age of Empire, the BBC's Jonathan Marcus sets out on a journey to examine America's place in the modern world.




"America has no empire to extend or utopia to establish. We wish for others only what we wish for ourselves - safety from violence, the rewards of liberty, and the hope for a better life."

So declared President George Bush in the traditional graduation address at the US Military academy at West Point in June 2002.

But despite his insistence that the US has no imperial ambitions, the word "empire" is increasingly used by academics and pundits alike when talking about America's role in the world.

We thought long and hard about the title for this series. Would Age of Empire prejudge the issue? Is America really in any sense an empire like Ancient Rome or Victorian Britain?

It is a question I put to virtually everyone I spoke to.

'Not quite right'

The answers differed dramatically.

The young British historian Niall Ferguson, for example, had no doubts.

"The United States," he said, "is an empire in every sense but one, and that one sense is that it doesn't recognise itself as such."

He called it "an empire in denial."

Strobe Talbott, former Deputy Secretary of State in the Clinton administration, found the notion of the US as an empire "grotesque, bizarre or laughable, depending upon what mood I'm in and who says it".

He said that, if anything, it was an anti-empire. "There is no interest among American people to set themselves up as an imperial power."

For others, like Michael Mandelbaum of the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies, America's current position is unique - there simply is not an adequate word to describe it.

As he put it: "Empire is not quite right but it seems to be closer than anything else we have in common usage, so we employ it."

Empire or not, there is a growing feeling around the world that America's unrivalled power is in some sense a problem.

It is something that Strobe Talbott recognises with regret.

"When our friends around the world get together behind our backs, they talk about the problem of American power, how to cope with it, manage it, even how to contain it.

"That is not the way we want others to think about us."

Globalisation meets 9/11

Today one of the buzz-words of international politics is globalisation.

It too is not an easy term to define; it encompasses the spread of market capitalism and the new communications technologies.

These seem to be shrinking the world and eliminating diversity.

Many trace a foreign policy shift to the events of 11 September 2001



Globalisation and US dominance are inextricably bound up.

The world of globalisation that was opened up by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War seemed almost designed for the US, accelerating the emergence of American superpowerdom.

For Joseph Nye, dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, US dominance has been a fact for years.

But it was the tragedy of 11 September which presented America's position in a stark new light.

Indeed, we began our series at Ground Zero in New York, the site of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center.

Many people believe that it was from the rubble of the towers that a more assertive and ideological foreign policy emerged.

Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded. President Bush proclaimed a new doctrine of pre-emptive military action.

Military, economic, cultural

So how does the current position compare with the great empires of the past. Is America just the latest in a long line of dominant powers? Or is it really unique?

Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek International, fast becoming one of America's most interesting foreign policy pundits, insists that there has never been anything quite like America's dominance of the world.

There have been other great powers, like the British Empire, but none have towered over their rivals in the way the United States does.

US defence spending dwarfs any of its rivals.

American dominance is not just military; it is economic.

US popular culture has spread around the globe.

There is what Mr Zakaria terms "a comprehensive uni-polarity" that nobody has seen since Rome dominated the world.


Click below to see a map of the Roman Empire in 116 AD

Enlarge Map

The Romans with their language, currency and the spread of Roman citizenship perhaps foreshadowed an early form of globalisation.

Niall Ferguson believes it is the British Empire that offers one of the best parallels.

He argues that if you look at what the US has long tried to do - expand the global reach of free markets and ultimately representative government - it bears an uncanny resemblance to what he characterises as the project of Victorian Imperialism.

Needing friends

But there is another side to this whole debate. Joseph Nye of the Kennedy school of Government believes that all the talk of US dominance and influence obscures a much more fundamental reality.

He calls it "the paradox of American power", by which he means that for all its global might, the US is unable to get the outcomes it wants by acting alone.

He argues that in terms of issues like countering transnational terrorism, dealing with the spread of infectious diseases, global climate change, international financial stability, none can be managed by any one country. The message for US policy-makers, he says, is simple. "We are the strongest nation the world has seen for some two millennia and yet we can't get what we want by acting alone".

md5

I have to agree with almost everything from your post Falstaff. Although, to be honest, I never expected to read such thoughts from an American. I'm impressed I'll add more later on, I'm busy right now

Falstaff

okey doke...thanx.
Looking forward to it, there has been sort of a vacumn of interest from me as well since Raid517 took off, we used to bicker quite a bit, I never really agreed with him too much, but he always kept my interest. If there is one axiom that is true it is that frank and honest discussion about any "truths" would not be valid without a sense of balance, as we all see our own truth. It is the intangible truths I seek, regardless of partisan politics or world opinion..

Zardon

Jeff is a deep thinker and can go outside the box and even the confines of his country. he is a travelled man, and with that comes education and a greater understanding of life.

Falstaff

Like someone else I know...

Logla

Here, here.

most of the worlds population see the US as the global empire of the day.
America will fall eventually in that in twenty years from now, China will have a larger economy and be able to fund many of the things that America has done.
The world is a constantly changing place and it is only now, in the modern world, that powers move with greater pace than they did in say the time of the Romans.
The far east is heading toward being more powerfull than ever and this worries many westerners, myself included.

raid517

Hey Jeff don't worry my friend. I still keep my eyes open for you. But life you know - well it can have it's own priorities.

If anything the fact that we disagree fundmentally on almost everything is I think very healthy. We have always managed to stay friendly and respectful regardless of this.

And hey at the end of the day, it's all just politics, it doesn't say a jot about what kind of people we are.

I think even in different circumstances we would still have gotten along really quite well.

Take care old man. And stay well.

Best regards,

GJ

BWX