Syria makes things interesting.

Arno,

We have tried being nice, and treating everyone equally, all that got us was 9-11.

You know what? Not all countries are equal, not all of them matter, why should we listen to countries that are ruled by dictators? Why should they have a say when they are not elected by their own people.

History is interesting, but never before has one nation had so much power, technology, and stability.

The next 100 years will be interesting.

I do agree we are trying to spread our civilization all over the world, you know why? Because it works.....

As for people hating us, sure some will get pissed off occasionally, but as long as we are consistent and fair, that will fade.

DD

 

It may be difficult to determine sometimes, but usually it's easy.

'Liberty' fighters don't intentionally attack civilians.

 

Cohen,

Now don't go using logic, you know that will only confuse them.



DD

 

Except if they are in Central America and Reagan supports them?

 

This is exactly the motivation and goal of neo-cons.

 

Refresh my memory, when have we treated everybody nice and equally.

BTW, the US might tend to listen to the dictators that we put into power more so than the ones we did not.

 

Well this Topic has degressed :

I thought it was Syria's proposal to make the Middle East a WMD free zone.

Which the US has already blown off because It will mean the over 200 Nuclear Warheads that Israel has would be outlawed.

I think the US must continue to promote its economic interests globally. That will maintain our economic and our military dominance in the world. That doesn't mean holding land, but economic dominance is the key.

 

Why do people point at Rome like it was a horrible thing? The Roman empire brought peace and prosperity to the world. Its collapse led to the dark ages. Commerce and peace spread in the wake of her legions. She let people self-govern while demanding reasonable tribute. I think if America turns out like Rome, thats not half bad. Rome's dominance lasted for 1000 years.

 

Which years would that be?

 

1) During the Roman Empire, about 60% of the population were slaves, and of the remaining 40%, only about 20% of them had any sort of real legal power.

2) The Romans brought peace....if you were Roman, or someone they conquered who wanted to live like they did. If you weren't either, you were genrally killed, exiled, or lived a life as a slave. One of their own historians, Tacitus, said of the Pax Romana " They make a desert and call it peace."

3) The Romans, although religiously tolerant, were socially forcibly homogeneous. That is to say, you were compelled to give up any of your own social or cultural priorities in oreder to adapt to their way of doing things..a perfect example being the Diaspora. They would conquer a region, set up a government conducive to trade with Rome, and leave troops there to put down any 'unrest', by that meaning movements for independance, cultural rebellion, etc. They were genrally hated the world round, as is evident by the large numbers of legiosn they had to constantly leave on active duty in 'pacified' provinces, outside of Italy propoer, and even there for several centuries.

4) There are conflicting periods by which to measure the Roman Empire, but when you get into the 10oo year range, you are most likely talking about the Byzantine Empire which, although arguably the Eastern version of the Roman Empire, was in fact a unique creature for the last 1000 years of it's existence. Roman Empire in the traditional sense probably runs from the 1st Punic War to the fall of Rome to Odoacer..a period of roughly 700 some years. The Pax Romana, which is the period to which I assume you refer, lasted from roughly the rule of Augustus to the rule of Marus Aurilius, or roughly 400 years...wnad was immediately preceded by Ceaser's genocide in Gaul ( over 1 million killed, over a million enslaved) and followed by several years og sustained Germanic invasions...and wasn't all that peacefull int he meanwhile if you were a slave, a Chritian, a Jew, pr any one else who didn't do things the Roman way, have land and money, and be of a certain parentage.

 

No exceptions.

 

*cough* Contras..*cough*

 

Could be SARS...better see the doc.

 

Propping up dictators/royalties/tyrants, arming religious fanatics, and running interference for Israel's human rights violations and violations of UN resolutions? That's being nice and treating everyone equally? Wow... I hate to see what happens when we get tough.

 

The Pax Romana, which is the period to which I assume you refer, lasted from roughly the rule of Augustus to the rule of Marus Aurilius, or roughly 400 years

This is more like 200 years. I do agree that Roma dominance started with the end of the first Punic War (241 BC) and began to fade in the third century AD with Severus (193-211) being the last "great" emperor.

 

You know what, we are the strongest country, and if the rest of the world can not get it's act together, we will do it for them.



DD

 

I would say that Rome likely was the rise to power of Rome was around 496 BC when they held off the alliance of Latin nations. While the invasion of the Gauls around 390 BC could be seen as a sign that she was not the most powerful nation, the consolidation of much of the Latin peninsula shows that an argument could still be made. I disagree that we must wait for the Punic war to call Rome the top nation, as that was just the proof that Rome could defeat Carthage. It isn't as though Carthage was actually more powerful up to that point. Much in the same way that America was more powerful than the Soviet Union from at least the end of WWII, but the USSR didn't fall until decades later, and never fell to the American military.

As for the end of Rome's dominance, we'll just call it at the move of the capital to Constantinople. That was in 326 AD, or 822 years after its rise to power. In this time period, I think you could not pick another nation that was as powerful as Rome, the only real argument would be Carthage, but a treaty existed with Carthage for most of the time before the First Punic war (meaning Carthage was no threat to Rome) and Rome was clearly dominant afterward. So 1000 is not that much of a stretch over 822, and that is even allowing that the Byzantine Empire is seperate from the Roman Empire from its very inception.

Now, onto living conditions under the Romans. Of course there were changes to people's way of life. The changes were not necessarily negative though. I don't know the numbers on who was free or a slave outside the Roman Rupublic/Empire so I won't comment on that. The fact is that Romanization in those times is very much like the Americanization of 3rd world countries today. The locals may not like the fact that their culture is disappearing (though that doesn't seem to stop the proliferation of American goods) but they are undoubtedly better off. It is really just a difference in philosophy. I look at all of the advancements brought by the Romans, you look at the homoginization of the people in her control. Some might see that as bad, but I see it as better than what came before and after. What is so bad about adopting the dominant culture, when your beliefs are allowed to remain unchanged?

 

Syria wilted.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,940945,00.html

Next topic?

 

While I concur we have work to do at home, I totally disagree with your point about what provoked the WTC attacks. Also, where are all the increased terorrist acts because of our attack on Iraq? Where are they? Nowhere, that is where, you know why because a show of force ALWAYS works to quell the masses.

We have been more then lenient with small dictatorships and have gone out of our way to listen to them as legitimate governemnts, well, guess what, no more.

I do like a more unified world approach but if it is not there, then our government has every right to protect it's people ANYWHERE on the planet.

DD