REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Ahmadinejad: 'American Empire' Nearing Its End

POSTED BY: WULFENSTAR
UPDATED: Thursday, September 25, 2008 19:58
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4237
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 6:24 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 7:33 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


Agreed.

Altho how we got into the "empire" business to begin with is a whole 'nother story. It wasn't for "freedom" or "liberation", that's for sure.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 7:35 AM

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

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 7:44 AM

CHRISISALL


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

Hey- we strike back sometimes....!

Just sayin'isall

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 7:57 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


EMPIRE:
A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.
b. The territory included in such a unit.
2. An extensive enterprise under a unified authority: a publishing empire.
3. Imperial or imperialistic sovereignty, domination, or control: "There is a growing sense that the course of empire is shifting toward the . . . Asians"
www.thefreedictionary.com/empire

Is there an emoticon for Hero jacking off?

No?

Tant pis.


---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 8:09 AM

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

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 8:19 AM

MALBADINLATIN


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

Weren't the Romans an empire as well as a Republic?...ummm...at times?

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 8:38 AM

MALBADINLATIN


Quote:

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

I think the belief that our military conquests and occupations are benevolent have become our justification for the exemption some take from accepting negative terminology for our military expeditions. But "it is what is, and now we gotta deal with it"

Many pro war folks use our brave men and women in uniform to shield thier own pro war arguments from negative terminology. IE "You're not supporting the troops if you call us an empire".

Like the notoriously Liberal and proud Bruce Springstein said "blind faith in your leaders can get you killed". So I say be open to the possibility your country, and it's army could be on the wrong path. Don't disclude the whole idea because of the definition of one word from an hour long interview. Lastly..."know thyne enemy"

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:01 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


HERO, it is possible to be a one thing "at home" and another abroad. One example: The British colonial empire, which for all practical purposes ended in 1947 when India stopped being a British Raj. During the colonial era Britain transitioned from a monarchy to a Parliamentarian democracy. Still, they were an empire.



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.

Is there an emoticon for Hero jacking off?

No?

Tant pis.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 10:03 AM

HERO


Quote:

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


No. Rome started as Republic, became a Dictatorship, and then an Empire.

H

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 10:08 AM

HERO


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.


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.

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

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

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

H

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 10:10 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


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.




It's wrong when folks think he's right. Hitler used many of the same tactics, placing blame of the financial crisis on " ZIONIST ".

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.





It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 10:11 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


Quote:

Yet we dictate to nobody.

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.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 10:32 AM

HERO


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.


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

America's first choice when assiting a new government is for a Democratically elected leadership. Such was not always feasable, often because we insisted on working through the local systems rather then simply removing it and replacing it with our own. In those cases the second best option from a foriegn policy standpoint is to support a pro-US leader. And in many cases, Ghana is a good example, we continued to use our influence to exert change to Democratic processes.

H

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 10:34 AM

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.

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 11:37 AM

KHYRON


Quote:

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

No, it was an empire while it was a republic and later when it was a dictatorship. You seem to think that "empire" is a form of government.

------------------------------

This isn't my signature. I have to type this every time I make a post.

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 11:46 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


You can tell Pentagon psyops produces Larry King's hideously ugle tick-headed Jew show, when the "translator" for Ahmadinejad is a female with the whiniest voice on the planet.

This brainwashes the stupid sheeple to literally think Ahmadinejad is a whiney woman without a brain.

Ahmadinejad is an Illuminati globalist, proven by his failure to go for the jugular, such as failing to mention Cheney and Rumsfeld selling Iran "nuclear bomb factories", Operation Northwoods, 9/11 Inside Job, "Judeo-Christian" Bohemian Grove, and Dick "Tater" Cheney ordering US Navy Seals to dress up like Iranians and attack the US Navy to "justify" war with Iran.

Cheney would have Navy Seals, disguised as Iranians, to attack US Navy vessels -- resulting in the Seals' deaths, and in the justification for an American attack on Iran:



Bush and Cheney funding AllCIAduh to attack Iran:


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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 12:31 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


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



Yes, and if said body only affected the people who elected them, you would not have the troubles you are having...



Lets party like its 1939

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 1:12 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


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.




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.







It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 1:34 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


Quote:

Actually the Romans and Brits seized territory. That territory was then ruled by Romans and Brits.
Yeah, they had soldiers in them. Garrisons, I believe. Today we call them "bases". So, what's different?
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 2:26 PM

MALBADINLATIN


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.

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 2:46 PM

SIGMANUNKI


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



Last I checked, your Administration didn't actually represent the people, nor did any other branch. That is unless you restrict the definition 'people' to 'corporate interests'.

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 2:53 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


BTW- I'm certainly not trying to portray Imadinnerjacket as always being accurate. Yanno what they say: Even a stopped watch is correct twice a day.

Nor am I trying to say that our troops are unwelcome everywhere. 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. But we DID have to go and stick our big fat noses into the Middle East, where we are truly NOT welcome. And we DO have troops in a lot of other palces, and a long history of backing really unsavory characters: Somoza, the Shah, Saddam, Suharto, Pinochet, Marcos, Park Chung Hee, the Royal House of Saud, Osama bin Laden and his band of Merrie Men, General Castello Branco etc. The list goes on and on.

So, yeah, peeps around the world are pissed off at us. Nobody should be surprsised.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 3:05 PM

SIGMANUNKI


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.




And you guys did that all alone. Not a bit of help from anyone. No not at all. And in all those conflicts, you were there from the beginning. It's not like a major attack on a Naval installation was required to get you into even one. And its not like there were other conflicts concerning freedom, etc that the US didn't get into *coughfalklandislandscough*. And you guys certainly haven't taken any territory either *cougheghawaiicough*. No, you guys are completely and totally benevolent.


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:

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




Nonsense. The US dictates to everyone always with a threat, if even implied, of punishment by trade, etc or even war. And lets not get into the US ignoring any WTO ruling when it's not in the US' favour even when ignoring the ruling screws its own industry *coughsoftwoodlumbercough*.


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.




Not particularly. The US really is the modern Roman (on the world stage at least).


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:

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



Actually, it'd probably be easier if the US weren't. Seems to work well enough for the rest of the West. You know, we actually talk instead of just threatening or using the broadsword.

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 3:09 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:

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




... by fraudulently getting them into office as a puppet of the US.


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.




So much for freedom then, eh.

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 3:13 PM

SIGMANUNKI


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.




I'll ask the wife, but I don't believe that US forces are used like that in Germany.

EDIT: The official word is that the US is Germany helping out (deterrence), but what actually goes on is the US just sits there trying to look tough. So, either way, the forces aren't be used in any functional capacity.

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 3:52 PM

TANKOBITE


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



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.



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".

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.

-----------------------------------------------------------
There's a widow in sleepy Chester
Who weeps for her only son;
There's a grave on the Pabeng River,
A grave that the Burmans shun;
And there's Subadar Prag Tewarri
Who tells how the work was done.

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 4:21 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

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

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.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 4:26 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Well, first I'd make sure of the translation, since I damn well know better than to believe anything MEMRI shovels.

Second, everybody knows he likes to needle us and piss us off, which might earn him points at home but isn't too smart on a globally political scale.

He wanted to be really insulting, he would have patronisingly offered us some economic advisors and an economic aid package... while gently insinuating that we're a bunch of ignorant redneck cowboys in possession of a country we more or less outright stole instead of growing up in, and have no native culture we didn't rob from someone else.


So he's just yanking our chain a little for poll points at home, and so what ?

It's not like he's as politically smart or dangerous as Chavez, and neither one of em really give a shit about us as long as we stay the fuck out of their business or their country, so let em talk, cause that's all it is... talk.

Only a complete fucking moron would start something real over it.

Oh.. wait, shit, yeah, we GOT to get Shrub outta that chair, don't we... before he does something else... stupid.

Grrr

-Frem
We, the unwilling, led by the unknowing,
doing the impossible, for the ungrateful.

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 4:32 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


As far as Ahmedinejad, all I’ll say is evil dictators far more powerful then he have said the same thing, following the collapse of their own Empire. I fart in his general direction.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 4:47 PM

MALBADINLATIN


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.

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!

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 5:11 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


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.



Ummm... where is ' here' ? 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....






It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 5:42 PM

MALBADINLATIN


Quote:

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

I live in the United States. So...that would be "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....
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.

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 6:03 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by Tankobite:

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




Check a calendar, it isn't the late 1940's any more. Also, the US weren't the only ones that were there occupying Germany. There were several others. For that matter, the forces were there long after they were needed.

Point of fact, Bush has threatened to withdraw US troops on a number of occasions because Germany didn't "fall in line." Germany's answer was, go ahead.


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.




Not only do I know what happened, I know the motivation of why things went the way they did. You don't. How do I know that? Because, what you've posted clearly indicates a complete ignorance of that knowledge. Read a book. It'll do you some good.

EDIT TO ADD: History is more than just dates.


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".




Hypocrite.


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.




What do you mean? Like you just did?

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 6:15 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


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!

Actually it did. I’m pretty sure it’s all correct, but feel free to point out anything that’s wrong, because I kind of wrote it on the fly. I was going to discuss how the Gracchi brothers tried to bring democracy to Rome, and how Sulla’s reign of terror ended the reforms and started Rome on its track towards empire, but I can’t remember the details off the top of my head. It is however a very interesting bit of history, if you have time to look it up. It's sort of what-if story: what if democracy had come to Rome? This might have begun cultural enlightenment centuries earlier.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 7:32 PM

FREMDFIRMA


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

And that's not an ounce snarky, I seriously wanna know.

-F

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 7:33 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


If you really want to understand the financial meltdown and the $100-Trillion scamout this week, read this free book online, or just the chapter on "Ten letters of an international banker to his son", by bankster Speerpoint Moregain, at Ru de Bankruptcy (street) in Paris, during his control of $100-billion in USA during the Great Depression. Apparently Moregain's son was unable to ampute his conscience, as his elitist father wanted him to do, and leaked the letters. This is like hacking Warren Buffet and Ben Bernake's email.

FREE EBOOK: Syndrome of Control, by Pastor Lindsey Williams, page 105 to 182
http://dzone.ca/eBooks/syndrome_of_control.pdf?PHPSESSID=3d2d6fe0f5e05
b4d6fc02af74485080d

www.scribd.com/doc/3911651/Lindsey-Williams-Syndrome-of-Control

Moregain's greatest fear was the "sheeple" discovering that the Federal Reserve Bank was private, and the "idiots" in Congress nationalizing the printing of money at zero interest to the banksters.

This week, that's the only thing that can save USA - and the world.

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

Thursday, September 25, 2008 1:49 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

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


Mexican/American War?

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

Thursday, September 25, 2008 1:59 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

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


No, the NATO forces in Germany, which American forces are a part of, were there to assist rebuilding efforts, and later to effect the first line of defence if the Cold War ever turned hot.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

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

Thursday, September 25, 2008 2:26 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


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.



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.




It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

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

Thursday, September 25, 2008 3:05 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


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 ?!

Because there are no such parallels. Rome as a parallel to a modern state would be far more similar to Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. One that can be seen from comparing ancient Rome to the US is how lucky we are to live in a state that is as free and prosperous as the US. In ancient Rome I would have been born into the plebeian lower class with no hope of ever being anything. 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.

You simply cannot pull an ancient state out of the history books and expect any kind of simple comparisons with the modern world.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

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

Thursday, September 25, 2008 3:51 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


We have camped our soldiers in all kinds of places all over the world in the name of "anticommunism". We've sent in our agents, trained the "security forces" through AID, and provided weapons and intel all over the world, in the name of "anticommunism".

It all sounds very noble, until you look into what we actually DID.

Did we bring democracy?

Uh, no. In a lot of cases, we directly overthrew/ or conspired to overthrow democractically-elected governments.

Did we bring freedom?

No, in a lot of cases we installed or supported tyrants. And I don't mean nominal tyrants, I mean tyrants who "disappeared" large number of ppl for the pleasure of ripping off their body part little by little, and who massacred tens to hundred of thousands.

Did we bring prosperity?

No again. I can point to nation after nation that went into an economic hellhole after our "intervention"

WHAT WERE WE DEFENDING THEN? If it wasn't democracy, or human rights, or economic prospertiy?

Very simple: We were defending CAPITALISM.

Peeps really get this whole democracy/ capitalism thing mixed up. They're not the same. Deal with it.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

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

Thursday, September 25, 2008 4:41 AM

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...

-F

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

Thursday, September 25, 2008 4:50 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


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...

Not really. And that’s the reason why you can’t make those kinds of comparisons. You don’t agree with the Iraq war, so you misuse historical comparisons to push that disagreement. But when placed side by side, there is no comparison. Rome massacred half the population of Gaul for instance. We would have to kill 12 million people in Iraq to even match that, as it turns out more people have died in Iraq trying to keep the peace during 12 years of sanctions then during the war that followed. It’s not that comparisons can’t be made; it’s that you can’t make them without also making the contrasts. And people tend to look at Rome and take an ounce of comparison while ignoring a pound of contrast because they are looking for something to push their own opinion, not because they really care about whether the comparison is meaningful or not.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

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

Thursday, September 25, 2008 5:27 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Just cause we're a lot nicer about it, don't mean we ain't doin it.

-F

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

Thursday, September 25, 2008 6:25 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


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

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

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

Thursday, September 25, 2008 8:28 AM

MALBADINLATIN


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.

Very true, I know many non evangelicals who are anti choice. But I have yet to meet an evangelical that is pro choice. I admit the generalization and that's it's probably an isolated thing here in Liberal Northern California, limited further only to my experience.

What I'd like to know is if the Old or New Testament says anything about abortion. I don't even wanna know how they did them back then if they did. But I wonder if organized pro life doctrine started as a moral, instinctual, or a legal matter, or a combination.

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

Thursday, September 25, 2008 8:49 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


The Bible refers to "quickening" as the start of human life. Basically, when fetal movement is felt- fourth or fith month. Here is an interestin take on it:
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.




---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

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

Thursday, September 25, 2008 8:57 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64646&p=2


SO Finn, I know that you won't answer my question as to what we're doing all over the world, because I'd be very specific and ask you:

What did we do in that nation, what did we do in this other nation? And since our intentions were honorable and our actions beneficial in some places, but in MANY places there was no sensible increase in democracy, no improved human rights, and no greater prosperity... well, then, you might have a hard time actually justifying our interventions with "the usual".

Sorry to say that you're unwilling to follow a trail of logic to its bitter, if insightful, end.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

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

Thursday, September 25, 2008 7:58 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


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.

I don’t have to explain what the hell we’re doing all over the friggin’ world. It’s sufficient that I point out that the definition of ‘empire’ is not consistent with the description of the US, which I’ve done and other people have done as well. I don’t think you can make a compelling case that US troops are in Germany, Japan, Italy, Belgium etc because we control these countries. Furthermore, I don’t think you can make a compelling case that the US is a military dictatorship. So you see, I really don’t even need to discuss why the US does what it does to demonstrate that it is not an empire – it’s in the definition and the history of the word. It doesn’t apply to the US. And if you can’t see this simple fact, then going any further into the issue is probably going to be fruitless. But you have demonstrated my point for me, which is that people call the US an “empire” not because it is, but because they disagree with some aspect of its foreign policy. I don’t know what you have against overseas bases – maybe you think we should be isolationist, or maybe you don’t like that we fought the Cold War, or whatever, but whatever it is, it has nothing to do with the US being an empire.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Why is Russia losing so much military equipment?
Wed, May 18, 2022 21:38 - 3 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Wed, May 18, 2022 21:36 - 240 posts
Trump's Budget
Wed, May 18, 2022 19:34 - 297 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!!!
Wed, May 18, 2022 16:44 - 10524 posts
Russia keeps threatening with nukes
Wed, May 18, 2022 15:12 - 76 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, May 18, 2022 14:46 - 322 posts
SILENCE!!!
Wed, May 18, 2022 03:04 - 2 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Tue, May 17, 2022 12:01 - 539 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Tue, May 17, 2022 11:14 - 1325 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Tue, May 17, 2022 10:56 - 323 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Tue, May 17, 2022 08:54 - 6242 posts
Abortion
Tue, May 17, 2022 07:32 - 195 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL