Why do liberals keep talking about America being this 'dying empire'? by Wulfenstar

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Oh, Wulf, you're hysterical in how you view things.

Looking for America (I REFUSE to call it "our homeland!) to fail is different from recognizing the failing of an EMPIRE. And honey, it ain't just "liberals" talking about it...it's just not politicians, who don't want us noticing it, that's all. America has been an empire. Empires always fail. That doesn't mean the COUNTRY fails, just that it takes a less powerful place in the world.

"Making utopia" is the same thing; as far as I know, all empires which eventually failed went on to be countries, just countries, but less powerful. In some cases better or worse, but eventually it usually evens out.

You can't see that, tho', can you? It's not surprising, it's all of a piece of your world view. You're either with us or you're the enemy. I'm sad for you.

The Roman Empire failed; is Italy still there?
The USSR "empire" failed; Is Russia still there?
The Ottoman Empire failed; is the Middle East still around?

We HAVE been an empire...not always recognizable as such because, tho' we've been a military empire and done everything military empires do, we've been more of an ECONOMIC empire; forcing other countries to do as we wish via finance rather than force.

But we've done our share of force, and we're called the most powerful country in the world...that's an empire, dear.

Here's Wikipedia on the American "empire":

Quote:
American empire (American imperialism) is a term referring to the political, economic, military and cultural influence of the United States. The concept of an American Empire was first popularized in the aftermath of the Spanish–American War of 1898. The sources and proponents of this concept range from classical Marxist theorists of imperialism as a product of capitalism, to modern liberal and conservative theorists analysing U.S. foreign policy.

That MIGHT help, tho' I kinda doubt it.

There's a huge difference between a country and an empire, maybe you can grasp that simple point? The political usage of empire denotes a strong, centrally-controlled nation-state.

Our "empire" has been "falling" for a long time now. You won't read it, I'm sure, but here's some information for you.

Why/how we have been an empire> The same way as almost all empires did:

Quote:
First. 'The Savage State,' before the Empire rises

"In the first, 'The Savage State,' a lush wilderness is populated by a handful of hunter-gatherers eking out a primitive existence at the break of a stormy dawn." Imagine our history from Columbus' discovery of America in 1492 on through four more centuries as we savagely expanded across the continent.

Second. 'The Arcadian or Pastoral State,' as the American Empire flourishes

"The second picture, 'The Arcadian or Pastoral State,' is of an agrarian idyll: the inhabitants have cleared the trees, planted fields, and built an elegant Greek temple." The temple may seem out of place. However, Thomas Jefferson built the University of Virginia using classical Greek and Roman revival architecture. [And there are far more edifices constructed in America one could call "Temples"...Lincoln Memorial among the.]

One of history's great tragic ironies -- that all nations fail to learn the lessons of history, that all nations and their leaders fall prey to their own narcissistic hubris and that all eventually collapse from within.

Third. Consummation of the American Empire

The landscape is covered by a magnificent marble entrepôt, and the contented farmer-philosophers of the previous tableau have been replaced by a throng of opulently clad merchants, proconsuls and citizen-consumers. It is midday in the life cycle.

At the very peak of their power, affluence and glory, leaders arise, run amok with imperial visions and sabotage themselves, their people and their nation. They have it all.

But more-is-not enough as greed, arrogance and a thirst for power consume them. Back in the early days of the Iraq war, Kevin Phillips, political historian and former Nixon strategist, also captured this inevitable tendency in Wealth and Democracy:

"Most great nations, at the peak of their economic power, become arrogant and wage great world wars at great cost, wasting vast resources, taking on huge debt, and ultimately burning themselves out." We sense the "consummation" of the American Empire occurred with the leadership handoff from Bill Clinton to George W. Bush.

Unfortunately that peak is behind us: Clinton, Bush, Henry Paulson, Ben Bernanke, Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and all future American leaders are merely playing their parts in the greatest of all historical dramas, repeating but never fully grasping the lessons of history in their insatiable drive for "economic progress," to recapture former glory ... while unwittingly pushing our empire to the edge, into collapse.

Four. Destruction of the Empire

In "The War of the World," Ferguson described the 0th century as "the bloodiest in history, one hundred years of butchery." Today's high-tech relentless news cycle, suggests that our 21st century world is a far bloodier return to savagery.

At this point, investors are asking themselves: How can I prepare for the destruction and collapse of the American Empire? There is no solution, only an acceptance of fate, of destiny, of history's inevitable cycles.

But there is one in "Wealth, War and Wisdom" by hedge fund manager Barton Biggs, Morgan Stanley's former chief global strategist who warns us of the "possibility of a breakdown of the civilized infrastructure," advising us to buy a farm in the mountains.

"Your safe haven must be self-sufficient and capable of growing some kind of food ... well-stocked with seed, fertilizer, canned food, wine, medicine, clothes, etc. Think Swiss Family Robinson." And when they come looting, fire "a few rounds over the approaching brigands' heads."

More at http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-rise-and-certain-fall-of-the-amer
ican-empire-2010-03-09?pagenumber=2

Now you and those like you, of course, already envision the above. But for many empires, it's much more subtle, their global financial power collapses, economic disaster throughout the country, the diminishment of support for the arts, science, innovation and technology, weakening of military might, and more. We've already got all of those. The Russian "empire" didn't collapse with fire and brimstone, and that's more the way we may go, even to the possible breakup of the Union, who knows? How fast, how violent, how complete the collapse of an empire will be can't be known ahead of time, in my view. But essentially, it's power (now it's global power) diminishes.

More on why the empire is now falling:

Quote:
Isaac Asimov wrote his Foundation stories to show that every Empire, even the most powerful one, has to fall eventually. Everyone knows that America achieved its' peak power and world influence in the twentieth century. But how much longer is it going to last? It is hard to predict while it is still alive and reasonably well. But, as Asimov observed, there are certain signs that may give early hints that the end is approaching. One of them is a loss of technological knowledge.

Much more at http://www.slawcio.com/republic.html

Quote:
"Imperial collapse may come much more suddenly than many historians imagine. A combination of fiscal deficits and military overstretch suggests that the United States may be the next empire on the precipice." Yes, America is on the edge.

You probably don't "get" any of this, tho' some of it may be recognizable to you, if you bothered to read it.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:36 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Maybe if you'd waited a few minutes, people would have chimed in. I just saw it, and took a few minutes to give you a full answer. Your should try curbing your need for instant gratification.

No, honey, we're not "growing up". Empires don't grow up...if they did, they might not collapse. And we're not taking care of our own, "your" guys want the divide between rich and poor to GROW, which further destabilizes a society, and they don't want to help the unemployed, which would be the number one form of stimulus for the economy and would HELP the country stabilize. And they're the ones who want to expand the wars to Iran, Syria, etc.

No, nobody was ever meant to be the world's policeman, but that's part of being an empire. The overweaning belief that only they know what's best for everyone. We got that in spades. Also the economic benefits that come from "ruling" other nations, as well as other things.

Your guys want more and more wealth, they want more and more corporate control, more and more global power...none of these help a country such as America.

We're definitely not taking care of our own, nore will we do a better job at it, that's not what the FALL of an empire is about either. We may well still send aid overseas once we get back on our feet after the fallm or take better responsibility for our citizenry, we can't know.

Few people are "cheering" the failure of our empire (tho' some are), and again, much as you'd like to blame us for all the ills in the world, not just liberals. We're just RECOGNIZING it happening. It's top heavy and we see it, which is completely different from cheering. It will harm every single one of us; it already is, most of us. It's "death throes" are killing people now, via poverty, lack of healthcare, loss of jobs, manufacturing, etc., and will kill many more before we stabilize, in whatever form we eventually do.

Your beloved fantasies won't come true, Wulf, and you live in a world which doesn't and has never existed.

ETA: Oh, and maybe you could learn to use the term "no one"...noone's only definition is Peter Noone. Just a thought.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:48 AM

There really isn't anything left to say, Niki. You covered it better than anyone else could have, IMO- direct; succinct.
Wulf better read it all, too.
Education is a good thing!

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:55 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Why, thank you Chris! You're a doll for saying so. I doubt he'll read it, tho'; he prefers to spout, not to read, from what I've seen. I figured someone else might enjoy, since we occasionally mention the dying of the "empire". Glad you think I did it well.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:06 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I often hear this from the right. They frequently talk about returning the country to the greatness it once held. Sometimes by way of revolution. The alternative is to watch our great empire crumble.

So I think both the left and right have their 'decaying empire/lost Utopia' fantasies and allegories.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Why, thank you Chris!

You're most welcome, Miss Talibani!

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 2, 2010 3:46 PM

Wulf,

1) Homeland? Did you look the word up before you posted it? Homeland is a piece of land that is ancestrally associated with a race. If the USA is a homeland, it ain't mine or yours, and it ain't called the USA. (The only country that uses this term AFAIK is Israel, kinda makes you wonder where Homeland Security came from, and then stop wondering again.)

2) Seen anything that said "Made in America" lately? We might need to see to that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 2, 2010 4:15 PM

HKCAVALIER

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 2, 2010 4:42 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

home·land noun \-ˌland also -lənd\
Definition of HOMELAND
1: native land : fatherland
2: a state or area set aside to be a state for a people of a particular national, cultural, or racial origin; especially : bantustan

fa·ther·land noun \ˈfä-thər-ˌland\
Definition of FATHERLAND
1: the native land or country of one's father or ancestors
2: one's native land or country

Hello,

Homeland definition 1 makes it synonymous with Fatherland. Fatherland can indeed be used to refer to the land of one's father.

The language was used adequately well.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 2, 2010 5:59 PM

Anthony,

I think the use is abusive and propagandistic, as if it were trying to imply that America is a nation of hereditary Americans, which is absurd. America is a nation of immigrants, and..

I'm with HK on this one. The only homelands that are found in America are Native American ones. My father is from Chicago. His father was from Inverness, Scotland. It's not like a lot of American's stories are going to be that much different. There really isn't such a thing as an American settler ethnicity.

Scotland is very different, in that it's full of people whose ancestors come from Scotland, and have for a long time. Lots of places are homelands, like Japan, but America is not one of them. Russia calls itself the Motherland, which is the same sort of thing, but at least that makes some sense. For us, I think it makes no sense, unless we're indians.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 2, 2010 7:28 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Personally, I don't find his use of the word abusive. I will concede that his entire remark was propagandistic and designed to smear a group of people. The U.S. is not my Fatherland. The literal land of my father and his father back at least three generations is Cuba. But by my preference, if I really wanted to claim a land of my ancestors it would be Spain.

However, that is my preference. Many American families have been here for enough generations that the country qualifies under both literal (the land of my father) and wider (the land of my ancestors) interpretations. Depending on how you count such things, there have been at least seven generations since this nation was founded. Some families even predate the founding.

I don't know enough about Wulf to claim him either a liar or an ignoramus for using the term 'homeland.' I am not going to sit in judgment over someone and define how many generations they must live somewhere before they can consider a place their ancestral home. It is entirely sufficient that they have ancestors there, and I'll assume they do until they tell me differently.

I also think that it is not fair to chastise someone for misusing language when their use is appropriate and acceptable under the rules of usage for the word.

Where Wulf may have mislaid a step is in assuming that this is the homeland of other Americans. That definition may not necessarily apply. (It does not apply to me, under the definitions I was able to find.)

However, Wulf's philosophies and statements are easily assailable on their own merit. (Or lack thereof.) He builds houses on foundations of mud. The color he paints his house is rather beside the point in my opinion.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 7:15 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

For me, "homeland" was brought into usage by the last administration, and everything connected to the word when applied to America makes me sick...also is too reminiscent of "fatherland", a term made popular by the Nazi regime (I mean GLOBALLY popular; I'm sure other countries used it previously). As far as I'm concerned, the term is one used almost exclusively on the right and was put "out there" as a visceral buzz word. I don't care what the official definition is. Language is fluid and evolves, and I feel that this term was pushed for ideological reasons, nothing more. We didn't need to call it "homeland" prior to Bush, as I recall.

And yes, it also bothers me because only those with the right to use it, in my opinion, are Native Americans. Like Anthony, my mom was born in France, so I consider myself as much an American Mutt as anyone else, but hardly a native.

An "empire" I believe we have been; a "homeland", never. I guess my "visceral" feeling when I hear someone use it is negative. It immediately says to me "right wing"! JMHO.

Actually, I can't remember ever hearing anyone "on the left" use the word.

I note Wulf never came back to respond. Bets as to whether he didn't like the answer, didn't read the response, had no comeback, or just plain doesn't give a shit?

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 7:24 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

For my own part, every child I knew in school sang about the U.S. being their home, their country, and the land that they love, so I don't think the idea of using the term homeland is new.

And it is my home, it is my country, and it is the land that I love more than any other. Not just a propaganda song, that. It's how I feel.

But I don't see my Country as ideal, Utopic (past or future), or even necessarily as the best country in the world. It's just the one I like the best and feel the most comfortable in. I concede I might feel differently had I grown up elsewhere, but the lesson of my Ancestors suggests not.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 8:11 AM

Niki, Anthony

I was referring to Bush's use, not Wulf's. Wulf is using it because Bush used it, I'm assuming that Wulf didn't look it up first.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 8:45 AM

STORYMARK

A crumbling economy, diminished power and respect on the global scale, a worthless gridlocked government, rising unemployment, crumbling infrastructure, and a public pacified from the teevee...

Yeah, Wulfie, things are going great....

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 9:21 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"A crumbling economy, diminished power and respect on the global scale, a worthless gridlocked government, rising unemployment, crumbling infrastructure, and a public pacified from the teevee...

Yeah, Wulfie, things are going great...."

Actually Story, I think its a matter of perspective.

A loser, will look at tough times and say 'everything is awful and there is nothing to be done. Except whine, and pule like Im going to do"...

Much like you just did.

A winner, which I believe makes up the majority of people in our country (or homeland, since it is our home and is our land... boy, did you guys go off track with that one...)

looks at a bad situation and figures out way to make it better. Doesn't complain, doesn't whine, just gets to sandbagging and shoring up the problem.

I won't say that all liberals are the loser type.. thats unfair. Nor will I say that all conservatives are the winner-types.

Just seems to be a larger proportion of the ones willing to do what is needed in times of hardship on the cons side then there does on the libs.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 9:23 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

ETA: Oh, and maybe you could learn to use the term "no one"...noone's only definition is Peter Noone. Just a thought.

And if you can't manage that, Wulfie, just use the word "nobody" instead. IF you can't grasp - and I've told you MANY times - that "noone" isn't a word, then just use "nobody" in its place.

As to our failing "empire" - yes, America's empire IS on the wane. You can claim otherwise all you want, but that doesn't make it less true.
For hundreds of years after the fall of Rome, people went around declaring themselves the "Holy Roman Emporer", and people at the actual fall no doubt refused to believe their great empire was gone, but none of those head-in-the-sand beliefs changed the reality of the situation.

When an empire falls, it tends to be gradually, rather than suddenly. I'm sure there were quite a few people in India who scoffed when they heard that the British Empire was falling; after all, they were still under the thrall of said "empire", were they not?

Now, as to your point about AMERICA failing, and "liberals" supposedly wanting that to occur... When those "liberals" were overwhelmingly elected in 2006 and 2008, did you concede that we had a "mandate" from the people? Did you go along with what we were trying to accomplish? Or did you want America to fail?

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 9:28 AM

BLUEHANDEDMENACE

Pretty clear about what the cons want for us...they bitch and whine about the cost of Obama's programs...which could have some actual merit....if they werent threatening to shut down the government until they get their tax cuts for the top 5% of the country, which is going to cost what, 700 billion?

Where's that Tea Party fiscal conservativism? Wheres the pay as you go mandate?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 9:31 AM

By the way, while we're speaking of falls of empires and the like, let's put this out there:

What do you think would have happened if Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette had realized that there was revolution afoot? If they had had specific information that there was about to be an uprising by the peasants who had become despondent over the hopelessness of their lives and futures?

Do you think they'd have tried to actually HELP their people, in order to stave off such unrest? Or would they have tried to more brutally suppress any opposition?

And which do you think the champions of American capitalism will do? Unrest is brewing - not against the government, as you suppose, but against the robber barons. When the heads of the rich are on the pikes of their gated communities, will they then still utter their usual tagline, "Life isn't fair!"? Or will they wish they'd have tried to help a bit more than they did?

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 9:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"A crumbling economy, diminished power and respect on the global scale, a worthless gridlocked government, rising unemployment, crumbling infrastructure, and a public pacified from the teevee...

Yeah, Wulfie, things are going great...."

Actually Story, I think its a matter of perspective.

A loser, will look at tough times and say 'everything is awful and there is nothing to be done. Except whine, and pule like Im going to do"...

Much like you just did.

A winner, which I believe makes up the majority of people in our country (or homeland, since it is our home and is our land... boy, did you guys go off track with that one...)

looks at a bad situation and figures out way to make it better. Doesn't complain, doesn't whine, just gets to sandbagging and shoring up the problem.

I won't say that all liberals are the loser type.. thats unfair. Nor will I say that all conservatives are the winner-types.

Just seems to be a larger proportion of the ones willing to do what is needed in times of hardship on the cons side then there does on the libs.

As much time as you spend whining and puling, wouldn't you say you're definitely one of the losers?

Can you show me ONE of the "ones willing to do what is needed in times of hardship on the cons side"? How do you define "do what is needed"? Lie, cheat, steal, kill, in order to live another day? Is that what you hold up as your "conservative values"?

When you say conservatives are willing to step up and do what needs to be done, does that include stepping forward to foot the bill? After all, it was you "conservatives" who blew trillions on your adventurous little wars, refused to pay for them THEN, and NOW want to continue to sidestep paying the bills for doing so. Not a single one of your side wants to step forward and pay for all the giveaways that came your way. Of course, for you, it's only really "welfare" when it goes to poor people, not when it's money given to the rich and taken from the middle class.

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 9:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"A crumbling economy, diminished power and respect on the global scale, a worthless gridlocked government, rising unemployment, crumbling infrastructure, and a public pacified from the teevee...

Yeah, Wulfie, things are going great...."

A loser, will look at tough times and say 'everything is awful and there is nothing to be done. Except whine, and pule like Im going to do"...

A winner, which I believe makes up the majority of people in our country (or homeland, since it is our home and is our land... boy, did you guys go off track with that one...) looks at a bad situation and figures out way to make it better. Doesn't complain, doesn't whine, just gets to sandbagging and shoring up the problem.

I won't say that all liberals are the loser type.. thats unfair. Nor will I say that all conservatives are the winner-types.

Well said. I'm sure that on December 8, 1941 there were folks saying much the same thing..."global economic crash, massive war in Europe and Asia, and now our Pacific Fleet sunk."

Easy to roll over and die. Instead this country got pissed and proceeded to outfight, outbuild, out produce, out invent, and wipe out every German and Japanese soldier, pilot, and sailor we could get our hands on right till the final buzzer at which point we showed our equal measure of mercy and kindness to our vanquished foes who even today remain friends and allies.

Dying empire. Liberals don't even know what America is, much less what we're capable of.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 9:44 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Easy to roll over and die. Instead this country got pissed and proceeded to outfight, outbuild, out produce, out invent, and wipe out every German and Japanese soldier, pilot, and sailor we could get our hands on right till the final buzzer at which point we showed our equal measure of mercy and kindness to our vanquished foes who even today remain friends and allies.

Dying empire. Liberals don't even know what America is, much less what we're capable of."

Exactly right. Well put, sir, well put.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 9:54 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

A loser, will look at tough times and say 'everything is awful and there is nothing to be done. Except whine, and pule like Im going to do"...

Much like you just did.

Nop, I didn't. But to a simple minded fool who only sees what he wants, I suppose I could see how you might think that (useing "think" in the most generous sense).

I just don't think it's particularly helpful or healthy to deny the problems that exist, just so we can say "we're number 1, rah".

No one said "let's roll over and die" - you and your ilk are so determined to villify anyone who doesn't see thing EXACTLY your way, that you must invent things to be mad at them about.

You're a sad, pathetic little ball of anger, without two thoughts of your own to rub together.

But it's okay, you've got your token wingnuts like Hero and eventually, no doubt, Rappy and Kane to come along and pat you on the back, so you can still feel like you have a functioning brain. The rest of us are long since bored with your schtick.

Quote:
A winner, which I believe makes up the majority of people in our country (or homeland, since it is our home and is our land... boy, did you guys go off track with that one...)

looks at a bad situation and figures out way to make it better. Doesn't complain, doesn't whine, just gets to sandbagging and shoring up the problem.

Given that all you do is complain, I don't think you grasp the irony here....

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 10:48 AM

Lol@ Peter Noone. Again. Hey, not lol#noone. Of course, except that, that's what he would want. But the fact that the last time Wulfie said Noone the whole thread became about Peter Noone, you would think that he might have caught that one.

Mike,

Sorry, skeet time, "duck." Okay or clay pigeon, but this:

The Holy Roman Empire is another name for Austria. It's something that people very often get wrong. The HRE was founded in 800 AD but Chuck the Awesome (hell, every culture in europe claims him and calls him something different that means this) He was a Frank from the Netherlands. Who knows what he spoke, he didn't read or write anything IIRC. Anyway, in 1806 the name was retired, though only as the ruling title, in favor of "Austria" or "the Grand Duchy of Austria" but the name Austria had been used since before the name HRE. The Empire, also called the Hapsburg Empire, or the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was broken up after WWI, essentially by the allies.

The break up of the Empire is the #1 thing I blame for WWII. It was a moronic move, because though, yes, the Empire represented a potential threat, it would have been easier to have used WWI to stabilize Austria as a non-military power, the way we *could* have done at the end of WWII to stabilize the Empire of the Rising Sun. The decision not to do so is what my brother calls "The stupidest military decision of all time." And I'm forced to agree.

Holy Roman Empire at its largest extent, c. 1640

Sure, there were plenty of times when it controlled more of Europe than this, but this is its greatest world empire, IIRC. The empire lost Mexico in 1867.

Hayek's post mortum of the collapse of the empire blames it largely on unchecked international finance, and his economic theories you know well, because they're a major base for the Mises/Austrian School of Economics that now dominates our own post-imperial thought.

Also, "Emperor" not "Emporer" we all have a little Wulf just waiting to get at that chicken in the kitchen

Next, Louis the XVI *were* aware that there was a revolution afoot and they *did* try to help the peasantry. What's really seldom told and oft misrecorded by history is that this was really the Gorby regime of its time. The king and more so the queen, were incredibly progressive, to the point of irking the nobility of France no end.

The major problems were:

1) The war in America. Funding *our* revolution, our revolutionary war of independence, was what was breaking France. (You didn't really think we defeated Britain by *ourselves* did you?)

The French had figured out that the Brits had just made a major mistake in pissing off America, and were looking for a new powerful ally that would help France in europe, and imperially, overseas.

The snag was that the Americans would never help out. Sure, we would help out some France, centuries later, but that didn't do much for the Fleur de Lis, did it?

So, well wallowing in debt, the French economy crumble, no doubt with a helping hand or two.

2) The opportunist intellectuals of the enlightenment being very wrong (sorry, Rousseau had his points, but he was naive. Child psych aside, oh, did I mention he gave all his own children up for adoption? Kinda hurts his creds,) anyway, just like our academic elite, they decided to start rumors. As Robespierre put it "Who cares if it's true? If it's in the paper, they'll believe it." Or words to that effect. So, a story was constructed about the Queen being an Austrian spy, and the King aiding Germans invading across the border into France, none of which was reality. That, throw in a prison break and you have a fucking ignorant revolution.

So, yes, that's exactly what I'd expect them to do. Do I think that the American powers that be will do that? No. We have the same sort of team taking us down that took down France, and Austria, hell, if not the exact same team.

Some American capitalists *will* help America and Americans try to get back on their feet. But it's not just a matter of trying, they also have to understand the problem, and more than that, actually have workable solutions.

In the end, I think we're going down.

Hero,

Sorry, I can't call our Mike on historical inaccuracies on a thread that has both Wulf and you in it at the same time without being fair:

WTF man? Why is 12/7 so important to you? Has it never occurred to you that at this point, we had been at war with Japan for four years?!?

I really think that no matter how many times someone proves it on this board, it doesn't sink in, nor that the same damn morning we had sunk a Japanese sub.

Now, IIRC, we sank a Japanese sub 150 miles off our coast, prompting many an ignoramus to say "Oh, what was japan doing 150 miles off our coast?" Well, our cost being the non-state possession of Hawaii, and their coast being the non-state possession of Midway, 150 miles off our coast was called Japan.

So what was going on? Let me make it real simple for you:

1) We had a policy of "Manifest Destiny" which FDR, being the imperial fascist that he was, thought extended all the way across the pacific to Asia.

2) Japan had a very similar policy, being the imperial fascists that they were, Hirohito and Tojo thought it would be swell if Japan controlled the entire Pacific.

Well, these two policies were bound to collide with one another. At some point, long after this had actually happened, and the war was going full tilt, the President had to gorram admit that he was fighting a war with Japan, and so he used the incident as an excuse.

The incident itself was just a major attack during the war. The US Fleet was going to launch into the pacific, and after the sinking of the sub, the Japanese commander panicked, and ordered the attack.

The Japanese debated the issue over radio com for 15 minuted before making the decision, it took another 15 minutes for the nearest planes to reach the site and strike. 30 min and Pearl Harbor was sunk.

Meanwhile...

The American sub commander knew exactly what he had just done, and exactly what would happen afterwards. He radioed base immediately and warned them to evacuate. Fearing that they might be tricked at some point, US command had set up a policy in the chain of command: Evacuation orders had to come from the top down.

So, the person who received the warning ran to find the base commander, who then tried to reach washington. He got the deputy secretary of defense, who then ran to get the sec. of defense, who was having morning coffee in the park, botanical gardens IIRC. The sec. of def then called the president, who then called the base to order them to evacuate.

No one answered the phone. This is because the whole US Chain of Command process had taken 32 minutes. 2 minutes too late.

No conspiracy, but no unexpected earthshaking event. It was a simple failure of preparedness.

Later, the Japanese would suffer an intense defeat due to their own command problems: They were operating in the most efficient manner possible, which was regimented to perfection. That made their movements very predictable. The US would use this information to bomb Japanese Aircraft Carriers while the planes were out on mission...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 11:45 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

That is an interesting version of the Pearl Harbor event.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 12:20 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
A crumbling economy, diminished power and respect on the global scale, a worthless gridlocked government, rising unemployment, crumbling infrastructure, and a public pacified from the teevee...

Yeah, Wulfie, things are going great....

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

That is why our negriod is a one term monkey.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 1:14 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
A loser, will look at tough times and say 'everything is awful and there is nothing to be done. Except whine, and pule like Im going to do"...

Much like you just did.

A winner, which I believe makes up the majority of people in our country (or homeland, since it is our home and is our land... boy, did you guys go off track with that one...)

looks at a bad situation and figures out way to make it better. Doesn't complain, doesn't whine, just gets to sandbagging and shoring up the problem.

Gawd, your myopia and deliberate blindness is hard to take. I can’t even put up a laughing emoticon at this one, because it’s too sad to laugh at.

Right now you are running around crowing all over the place how you and yours “took back the country”, beat the shit out of the Dems and are now going to make everything peachy keen. It’s a total lie, but you’re incapable of seeing that—and I assume when the country doesn’t turn into utopia, you’ll either not notice it, deny it or blame the Dems.

But until NOW, you have been bitching and moaning, “puling” and grousing endlessly. So what does that make you?

What “out-producing, out-inventing and out-building” do you see going on these days...or for the last ten-plus years, for that matter?? If you really think we’re doing that, there’s no hope for you. If you don’t see that we are in deeeep shit after eight years of Republican rule, that corporate greed has run amok, jobs are being lost overseas so a few can make a profit, that the Republican party WANTS things to get worse so they can take credit if they get in power, you are being deliberately blind. You TRULY think we’re still the greatest, which is absolutely astounding.

I love my country, but I hope I never get stupid enough to believe it's perfect, or better than all the others. That way lies self-defeat.

How about the fact that Clinton came in after Daddy Bush increased the deficit, brought it down and actually put us in the BLACK, then Sonny Bush came in and ran us up the biggest debt in American history. “...looks at a bad situation and figures out way to make it better. Doesn't complain, doesn't whine, just gets to sandbagging and shoring up the problem.” But of course, that Democrat was a loser, naturally. Only Democrats are losers.

Uh, wasn’t it Phill Gramm, McCain advisor (reads “Republican”) who said:

Quote:
[Jul 9, 2008] "We have sort of become a nation of whiners,"

He was speaking only of the Democrats, of course, not the “majority of the country” which you say is made up of winners. Look up “Republicans whine” and “Democrats whine”...both do.

It’s simple fear that keeps both of you and your buddies insisting that America is the greatest, numero uno, and not in decline, we understand that. We really shouldn't try to disabuse you of the notion, everyone should have their fantasies for as long as they can I suppose, especially if they're not willing to see the truth smacking them in the face.

Apparently you can’t handle any concept that doesn’t make Republicans all white hats and Dems all black hats. That’s the saddest thing about the way things are going right now...the conviction that only Republicans are patriots and only Republicans can fix everything. Wait and see...

Tea Partiers are always talking about the Founding Fathers. Wasn't Jefferson one of them? Wasn't he the one who said "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"?

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 1:52 PM

Anthony

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

That is an interesting version of the Pearl Harbor event.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

If I made an error, please point it out. Hero and I had a debate about this a couple years back and dug up a fair amount, which since seems to have drifted from his mind, and I must confess, it's possible some of it may have drifted from my mind, but this is my recollection.

There was someone else in the debate carrying the "sit on a log" conspiracy of inaction for the US who "wanted it to happen" so we could "get into the war."

I had to discard this conspiracy theory on a couple of fairly major grounds:

1) it doesn't take a lot of conspiracy to fail to stop an aerial bombardment in under thirty minutes.

2) the US was already fidgeting Japan in Manchuria, probably anything would have done for an incident to get a declaration of war.

3) it breaks the suspension of disbelief that america would sacrifice a significant portion of its pacific fleet in order to get a declaration of war in the pacific.

Often this is cited as how we got ourselves into war wih Germany, but actually, Germany declared war on us, iirc, shortly after this, but I don't remember the exact date.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 2:13 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"If I made an error, please point it out."

Hello,

The way you phrase events, the Japanese launched an attack on Pearl Harbor in response to the sinking of a submarine, and did so in 30 minutes' time. (15 minutes of which you allocate for debate via radio.)

This feels like a misleading presentation.

At best, the timing of an already-planned and in-progress attack could have been shifted.

In contrast, your presentation of the U.S. and Japan in a fencing match long before Pearl Harbor seems accurate to me. I would call it something of a 'cold war' experience, in that the two sides were conflicting indirectly and peripherally. The 'heating up' was inevitable, especially given the U.S. political stance of the time.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 2:14 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
A crumbling economy, diminished power and respect on the global scale, a worthless gridlocked government, rising unemployment, crumbling infrastructure, and a public pacified from the teevee...

Yeah, Wulfie, things are going great....

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

That is why our negriod is a one term monkey.

Ah,illustrating your raging racism as well as your ignorance at the same time.

Hoe efficient.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 3:57 PM

Quote:

Mike,

Sorry, skeet time, "duck." Okay or clay pigeon, but this:

The Holy Roman Empire is another name for Austria. It's something that people very often get wrong. The HRE was founded in 800 AD but Chuck the Awesome (hell, every culture in europe claims him and calls him something different that means this) He was a Frank from the Netherlands. Who knows what he spoke, he didn't read or write anything IIRC. Anyway, in 1806 the name was retired, though only as the ruling title, in favor of "Austria" or "the Grand Duchy of Austria" but the name Austria had been used since before the name HRE. The Empire, also called the Hapsburg Empire, or the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was broken up after WWI, essentially by the allies.

I believe you've fully missed my point. I was pointing out that there were STILL people calling themselves "Roman Empire" this and that long after the actual thing itself had fallen, because they could not admit that such a thing ever happened. They were still trying to capture - and cash in on - past glories and victories. Much like the thing many of you insist on calling "America" today.

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 4:24 PM

Anthony

I did not mean to imply that a pacific conflict was instigated by the incident, but that it was a powderkeg which was sparked by it.

It is often misreported that the specific attack, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, was an event planned long in advance. It may have been a contingency, but on all the reports I found to be neutral and credible, there seems to be no serious consideration that this was the case. It appeared to be sincerely a spot decision.

Japan was locked in more than a cold war with the US, as we were in a land war in Manchuria. The worst Japanese fear was that the US would launch its Pacific fleet into Japanese waters, and perhaps make a mad dash for the homeland, or take out peripheral possessions of the Empire.

On the morning of 12/7/41, the American vessel was actually on routine patrol, as was his Japanese counterpart. Both navies had been expanding their spheres of influence, and the two empires were not aware that their waters had collided. Both captains were clearly very alarmed to find this out. The American said that he panicked, because in the few seconds he had, he had to think what the Japanese sub commanders would do, and he suspected that what he would do would be to panic, and fire. Which is what the American did instead, and he said it took him only a few seconds more to realize his error.

The American radio'ed command in Hawaii because he figured that the Japanese had a contingency to destroy the American fleet. This was a guess, which turned out to be close to the truth. He was aware his panic had set this into motion.

***

The Japanese were uncertain. Their debate, as they recorded in their own logs, was whether this was in fact the launching of the American fleet. If so, it was the best course of action to take the rest of the fleet out before it could launch. The Japanese commander who ordered the attack said that the end decision was not to take the risk that it might be a full launch of the fleet, and to attack.

Quote:

At best, the timing of an already-planned and in-progress attack could have been shifted.

This log did not make clear whether the bombing of pearl harbor as it was executed was a pre-planned event, or a contingency plan, or thought of on the spur of the moment, but my suspicion was that it was a contingency plan. I think if it had been a pre-planned attack, they would not have risked screwing it up, and would have just launched under cover of darkness. I think if it had been a plan conceived on the spot, it would have taken longer than 15 min. deliberation. So, I suspect that it was a contingency plan, 15 min were spent deciding whether to enact it, and another 15 executing it.

I will agree that a naval cold war was in effect, but the conflict in Manchuria was real, and a situation that could easily get out of hand, as it did. I just meant that Hero's portrayal of 12/7 as a hinge date exaggerates the situation. Yes, it's a significant date, but it's not like the world was a different place the next morning. We were still fighting the Japanese.

If I had been president of the United States at the time, I'm not sure what my response would have been. Democracy is tricky. It's pretty clear that the best tactical move would be to withdraw from a conflict with Japan that had little to do with my nation, but this would be a very unpopular move. I'm very to war games, but my side in a game is never subject to popular approval.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 4:34 PM

Mike

It's different. The HRE was cashing in, as you say, on the name "Roman Empire." It has no real relation to the roman empire.

By contrast, this USA is a successor state at best, if not the same state, as the USA which preceded it. I'm afraid that the USA as a national imperial entity was always as evil as it is today, and that the only thing which has really changed is our access to the information.

If some spanish speaking latin american multi-union captures the SW US and calls the whole union "the USA" then it will be analogous to the HRE. But that's a different kettle of fish.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 4:49 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"So, I suspect that it was a contingency plan, 15 min were spent deciding whether to enact it, and another 15 executing it."

Hello,

At the very least, the ships were armed with newly perfected technology that was specifically designed for the attack at Pearl Harbor. We know for a fact that there was a well-rehearsed plan in place to attack the harbor and sink the ships there. There is too much evidence of a plan, leaving only the debate as to whether it was being held in reserve or was being actively enacted.

I am averse to the contingency interpretation.

I do not believe that this plan could have been executed on such short notice, even as a contingency. I am open to the discovery of new documents that prove otherwise. However, ebracing the contingency theory requires be to also embrace a concept of military efficiency that defies even the most flattering stereotypes at my disposal.

No, I believe they were already pulling the trigger, and at most squeezed that trigger a bit sooner than intended.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 4, 2010 7:18 AM

Anthony,

Winners write the history books. Sure they were equipped for it and had a plan for it. They were also equipped and had a plan for invading the Pacific Coast. That didn't happen. I actually think it was way down on their list.

I take your point about military efficiency. OTOH, things change. Compare the response to the 1906 Earthquake in San Francisco to the similar one in the 1980s, 1990s, I can't find it, things which took minutes in 1906, took hours in the later one. We have become inefficient. This to me was one of the more startling thing about 9.11, the degree of inefficiency. In the time available, our precessorys would have easily stopped the attack.

A contingency plan is a plan that you actually *can* put into effect, like the recent floods in Cedar Rapids, which represented more water and more destruction than the preceeding Hurricane Katrina, but were responded to by a well defined contingency plan. Katrina was responded to with no plan at all on any level. Planning makes a lot of difference.

I'm familiar with the version that the Japanese attack was already underway, as that's the official story, but I'm not convinced. The reports I read, and sorry I don't have the link, it's probably in that past thread, but speaking of unorganized systems, here at fff ;) Anyway, the commander lays out pretty clearly a bing bing bing of what happened, and that's correlated to Japanese sources. It's not to rule out that the events were simultaneously unfolding, after all, we were fighting Japan already, it was certainly something which had occurred to both sides.

Perhaps I give too much credit to stories that try to investigate the war, because the official story they are debunking is as bad as any. Senseless slaughter. But how many Americans know that Iwo Jima was the disaster it was, and that the planting of the flag was a photo op? No one was there when the flag was planted with a camera.

IIRC, the ground actually was lost and then recaptured before the flag was pulled and then planted. Someone undoubtedly has this story. But the point being, it was heavily fictionalized. The Japanese account is also curious, and insane. The soldiers were essentially told that they would never be rescued, and they had to win the Island or die.

I think the only thing I would be sure of overall would be that the capture of Hawaii would have been on the imperial Japanese agenda for the same reason the US was occupying it at the time: Pacific dominance. The upshot was that neither side got any of it, and most of it fell into total chaos for the next half a century, and Indonesia is still there. I feel pretty confident that if you had convinced either side of what the map would look like after the war, either one would have called the whole thing off.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 4, 2010 8:58 AM

Anthony,

Rethinking it. It occurs to me that the military commanders of the time would want to exaggerate their efficiency. Looking back at our earlier society, and at other societies, its clear that the level of efficiency here was once radically higher than it is now, but that doesn't mean they didn't exaggerate the case.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 4, 2010 3:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Rethinking it. It occurs to me that the military commanders of the time would want to exaggerate their efficiency.

Dream, who cares? We have Firefox AND Mr. Coffee!!!

Who can stop us??

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 4, 2010 5:23 PM

Chris,

Hate to break it to you, but I think your Mr. Coffee was probably made in China. I think that answers your question.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 4, 2010 5:30 PM

And my Firefox was made in Russia; what's yer point?????/

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 4, 2010 5:47 PM

Um, yeah. Russia...

I see that Firefox has given rise to a lot of furry porn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 4, 2010 5:48 PM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 6, 2010 3:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
That is an interesting version of the Pearl Harbor event.

He left out Ben Afflec...

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 6, 2010 3:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Apparently you can’t handle any concept that doesn’t make Republicans all white hats and Dems all black hats. That’s the saddest thing about the way things are going right now...the conviction that only Republicans are patriots and only Republicans can fix everything. Wait and see...

I don't think 100% Republican or Democrats is the answer or even 100% conservative or liberal...

Like my morning cereal, good govt requires just the right mix of BOTH fruit and nuts.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 6, 2010 8:21 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
I don't think 100% Republican or Democrats is the answer or even 100% conservative or liberal...

Like my morning cereal, good govt requires just the right mix of BOTH fruit and nuts.

I agree.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 6, 2010 10:14 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
By the way, while we're speaking of falls of empires and the like, let's put this out there:

What do you think would have happened if Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette had realized that there was revolution afoot? If they had had specific information that there was about to be an uprising by the peasants who had become despondent over the hopelessness of their lives and futures?

Boy, good thing there wasn't a Monarchist Wikileaks back then.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 6, 2010 11:14 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

In response to your question, Mike: They would have ignored it. People in power usually can't conceive of anything overcoming that power.

As it became imminent, they might have called the Army out initially, but as that became ineffective, they'd have gathered their wealth and split. That's my guess.

I'm more in favor of RESOLUTION than revolution. Revolutions almost never bring about improvement.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 6, 2010 11:28 AM

I agree with Hero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 6, 2010 11:31 AM