Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Its wrong when he's right.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Its wrong when he's right.

---

America is not an empire. The entire premise is wrong, so he can't be right.

H

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
www.thefreedictionary.com/empire

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
REPUBLIC

Noun 1. republic - a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
America is not an empire. The entire premise is wrong, so he can't be right.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
Weren't the Romans an empire as well as a Republic?...ummm...at times?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
When a nation has troops in 800 installations around the world, it's a little difficult to justify that these are all "defensive". because, really, the only land we should be defending is ours.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/09/23/ahmadinejad.us/index.html?ir
ef=topnews


Its wrong when he's right.

---

Quote:

---

Yet we dictate to nobody.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Yeah, we just install and arm dictators. That's exactly what the Romans and British did. Nobody is more loyal than the dog you feed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
70 yrs later, there are too many sheep who are willing to listen to a wolf's lies in Immanutjob's words and think he's " right "

Sad.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
Rome started as Republic, became a Dictatorship, and then an Empire.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
www.thefreedictionary.com/empire

---

REPUBLIC

Noun 1. republic - a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them

H

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
70 yrs later, there are too many sheep who are willing to listen to a wolf's lies in Immanutjob's words and think he's " right "

Sad.

---

Those two issues are big problems for him when he addresses Americans expecting to be taken seriously. His pro Palestinian position, and his allegations that six million Jews was the not the correct death toll during the Holocaust, are not negotiable issues for Americans.

I personaly didn't decide he was "right" about anything. He didn't provide any evidence, and like our politicians they all merely "beg the point" using all manner of potential reward or punishment. I need evidence to decide if somebody is "right".

I agree with you...Sad.

---

Quote:

---

Actually the Romans and Brits seized territory. That territory was then ruled by Romans and Brits.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm sure you also thought it was funny when Immanutjob said Iran " didn't have any homosexuals ".

Those Persians, one hi-larious gut buster after another.

---

Not trying to be contrary but that was actualy one answer where he gained ground with me last night. What I got from him was that in Iran there is no "PDA" or references to sexuality allowed by law for every Iranian citizen gay or straight. That is typical for Islamic Republics and Monarchys'. He added that what happens behind closed doors is not interfered with. It makes them backwards IMO but not lawless.

However AURaptor...I watched the translation from the Columbia University gig where he clearly stated while shrugging and giggling that "we don't have Homosexuals in Iran". This man should not be underestimated. He knows exactly what to say to initiate partisan debate amongst Americans. Like when he played to the doubts about the Iraqii war by saying "why don't you go back to America and tend to issues like healthcare, your economy, and education. Yeah! that's because A'J'dod cares about Americans so much.

I know a few modern capitalist young Iranian students going to school here who can't wait to toss thier Islamic leaders out as fast as I want to toss out our evangelical leaders here.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
www.thefreedictionary.com/empire

---

REPUBLIC

Noun 1. republic - a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them

H

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

In the last 100 years America has fought and won the largest wars in human history, utterly vanquished our enemies, and taken not one inch of territorial conquest.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

We are an ally to many, hence our deployments. Yet we dictate to nobody.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

I would argue that America's postion in the world is unique in human history. It simply does not fit the definition of empire.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Sometimes it would be so much easier if we were an empire...
H

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

In those cases the second best option from a foriegn policy standpoint is to support a pro-US leader.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

And in many cases, Ghana is a good example, we continued to use our influence to exert change to Democratic processes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

I'm sure Germany and Japan appreciate the chance to use more of their GNP for production, education, and a better living standard, and are happy to shuffle off the onerous taks of "defense" on us.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
Weren't the Romans an empire as well as a Republic?...ummm...at times?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The short answer is no. The Roman Empire followed the Roman Republic; it did not coincide with it.

The long answer is that the Roman Republic was never a Republic. It was ruled by unelected patriarchs, not elected representatives. The Roman Republic was heading in the direction of a true democratic republic until Sulla, but it never got there. So the two forms of government that distinguish the Roman Empire from the Roman Republic are probably not distinct enough to avoid categorizing the late Roman Republic as an Empire.

The Republic is probably the most misunderstood. The Romans never had a republic like what we think of today. They did not elect representatives. The Roman Republic was a patriarchal oligarchy; the word senator translates as the elder of a family, and the concept of the republic was nothing more then the continuation of the early Roman tribal leadership by clan elders or chieftains to a larger scale. These elders, or senators, were the ruling members of the elite families (read: clans), the so-called patrician families. The word Republic comes from the Latin words Res Publica, which translates as “a public thing.” Roman Publica was divided up into two large groups – the Patricians or fathers (the ruling class) and citizens or Plebeians (the working class). The idea existed – that the government was a public thing – that the public should own or control or have a say in the government. But the implementation was nothing like what we have today. Of course there were times when plebeians had greater power – the agrarian reforms, the Gracchi brothers, during which the tribunes gained considerable power – enough to move Rome towards a true democracy. But it was superficial, because it never really took power from the patricians.

The concept of Empire is easier to see. It comes from the Roman word Imperator, which means a military general. An Empire then is a nation ruled by a military general, a military dictatorship, as it were. So the idea of an Empire being expansive is simply a consequence of the Roman military dictatorship being expansive more then any real definitive quality of an Empire. There’s no reason why an Empire need be large.

The fantasy that the US represents an empire because it has troops in foreign nations is absurd. The Roman Empire was not an empire because it had troops in other nations, but rather because it replaced the native ruling party with a Roman governor, which answered only to the sitting Roman Emperor or Consul (in other words the military), as far as ultimate control of the territory was concerned. The US does not do this. Just because we have troops in other nations does not mean we replace that nation’s government with a US military dictatorship. Even in situations where we actually have replaced the native government, such as Iraq, Germany, Japan, etc, we don’t do so with a US governor, much less a military dictatorship. Furthermore the concept of an empire is one of military dictatorship; the US is not a military dictatorship. Calling the US an empire is factually incorrect and more often then not an attempt to malign the US for political reasons.

---

Quote:

---

I know a few modern capitalist young Iranian students going to school here who can't wait to toss thier Islamic leaders out as fast as I want to toss out our evangelical leaders here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Ummm... where is ' here' ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor: I don't know anywhere where there are 'evangelical leaders' who hold 1/1000th the power or sway over the population as do the Islamic nuts in Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc....

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tankobite:

No the forces in Germany are there to make sure the Germans live with democracy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tankobite:

You think I'm kidding, don't you? Until the end of the Franco Prussian war there was no Germany, and up until the end of WWI, all the Germanies had been monarchies. Germany had a brief experiment with democracy for about 13 years and then went to Nazism. After that democracy and representative government was force on them by treads of a tank and barrel of a rifle in 1945. East Germany finally got a taste when they unified in 1990.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tankobite:

What's with you all anyway? Just because a person's political beliefs don't fall lock step with your own doesn't give you the right to be a horse's ass, no matter how much "They do it first".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tankobite:

Also, in the spirit of this thread: bugger off Sigma; if I didn't know for a fact that arguing on the internet is a waste of time I'd bother with that load of tripe you just posted.

Pax.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
Thanks for the very informative answer Finn. You're amazing! Did all this just flow from your head?...like...without cutting and pasting? Thanks again!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
Actually the Romans and Brits seized territory. That territory was then ruled by Romans and Brits.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tankobite:
No the forces in Germany are there to make sure the Germans live with democracy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:

If evangelicals reach thier goal of overturning Roe V Wade, thier "power" or "sway" over whether or not a woman can choose to abort a first trimester fetus is complete. 1/1000th of "complete" is the same as 999/1000th's of "complete". 10% of nuthin' is nuthin', carry the nuthin'.

Also...I merely pointed out that I, and my Iranian friends, dissapprove of religion as criteria for law makers during thier legislative process. If I was to concede that religious oppression in Iran was a greater hindrance to freedom in Iran than religious oppression in the US is to Americans, my instincts tell me that it is.

But, that reality in no way lessens my dissapproval for American evangelicals using religion in thier legislative decision making process because that legislation affects non Christians.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Finn, if you know this stuff that well, then why are you so blind to it's parallels on our own soil ?!

---

Quote:

---

When Rome invaded another nation, they raped it of its cultural wealth, massacred its population, crucified its leaders and then established a new Roman government either on the ruins of the native or next to it with supreme power.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Quote:

---

When Rome invaded another nation, they raped it of its cultural wealth, massacred its population, crucified its leaders and then established a new Roman government either on the ruins of the native or next to it with supreme power.

---

Gee, that sounds kinda familiar...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
One need not be an evangelical, or even religious in any way to see that abortion past the 1st Trimester is potentially a major problem, constitutinally speaking. The very legitimate issue arises as to when an unborn becomes a recognized 'individual' , a human whose rights are to be protected, the same as the mother's.

---

Quote:

---

The notion that abortion prior to "quickening" is murder cannot be supported by the Bible. To the contrary, the Bible recommends administering an abortifacient to a wife if her husband suspects her of being unfaithful.

Numbers 5:11-29. A priest would administer the abortifacient ("water of bitterness", Num. 5-17-18) and if the woman has in fact been unfaithful, the water would "make your uterus drop, your womb discharge". Num. 5-21,22, and 27.

A distinction between punishments for accidently inducing an abortion (paying a fine) and killing a human being (being put to death) was reflected in the earliest known legal codes, including the Code of Hammurabi. Similarly, the law of Moses could distinguish between aborting a fetus and injuring a human being:

21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 21:23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 21:25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Exodus 21:22-25.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
But Finn, you have yet to explain to everyone on the board what the hell we're doing ALL OVER THE FRIGGIN' WORLD.

---