(OP/ED) Stagger on, weary Titan

[Tim Nice But Dim]

Stagger on, weary Titan

The US is reeling, like imperial Britain after the Boer war - but don't gloat

Timothy Garton Ash in Stanford
Thursday August 25, 2005
The Guardian

If you want to know what London was like in 1905, come to Washington in 2005. Imperial gravitas and massive self-importance. That sense of being the centre of the world, and of needing to know what happens in every corner of the world because you might be called on - or at least feel called upon - to intervene there. Hyperpower. Top dog. And yet, gnawing away beneath the surface, the nagging fear that your global supremacy is not half so secure as you would wish. As Joseph Chamberlain, the British colonial secretary, put it in 1902: "The weary Titan staggers under the too vast orb of his fate."

The United States is now that weary Titan. In the British case, the angst was a result of the unexpectedly protracted, bloody and costly Boer war, in which a small group of foreign insurgents defied the mightiest military the world had seen; concern about the rising economic power of Germany and the United States; and a combination of imperial overstretch with socio-economic problems at home. In the American case, it's a result of the unexpectedly protracted, bloody and costly Iraq war, in which a small group of foreign insurgents defies the mightiest military the world has seen; concern about the rising economic power of China and India; and a combination of imperial overstretch with socio-economic problems at home.

Iraq is America's Boer war. Remember that after the British had declared the end of major combat operations in the summer of 1900, the Boers launched a campaign of guerrilla warfare that kept British troops on the run for another two years. The British won only by a ruthlessness of which, I'm glad to say, the democratic, squeamish and still basically anti-colonialist United States appears incapable. In the end, the British had 450,000 British and colonial troops there (compared with some 150,000 US troops in Iraq), and herded roughly a quarter of the Boer population into concentration camps, where many died.

Article continues... (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1555820,00.html)

[AROUETLJ]

Well-researched article, but if the author thinks the US will lose its position as top dog, he can dream on.

[dunkin]

Good article

I especially like this part.


None of this is to suggest that the United States will decline and fall tomorrow. Far from it. After all, the British empire lasted for another 40 years after 1905. In fact, it grew to its largest extent after 1918, before it signed its own death warrant by expending its blood and treasure to defeat Adolf Hitler (not the worst way to go). Similarly, one may anticipate that America's informal empire - its network of military bases and semi-protectorates - will continue to grow. The United States, like Edwardian Britain, still has formidable resources of economic, technological and military power, cultural attractiveness and, not least, the will to stay on top.


And this really hit the point home.


If you are, by any chance, of that persuasion that would instinctively find this a cause for rejoicing, pause for a moment to consider two things: first, that major shifts of power between rising and falling great powers have usually been accompanied by major wars; and second, that the next top dog could be a lot worse.

CV,
Again thanks for sharing.

[CMNot]

Good artical and a much better analogy than the tiresome US-Vietnam one we have come to here too much of.

[Mailman]

Jesus...what a load of crap!

Mind you, as someone has alread said, makes a change from being compared to America/vietnam...even america/rome :roll:

I guess the article, like most in the Guardian, are written for the rabidly anti-us goons consumption.

Mailman

[Flagg]

Well-researched article, but if the author thinks the US will lose its position as top dog, he can dream on.

Agreed....but the risk of the US losing SOME of it's top dog status is QUITE serious.

Every dollar spent in Iraq, Afghanistan, and fighting the War on Terror is one less left to invest in infrastructure, education, and R&D.

Meanwhile, countries like China benefit finacially by not having to spend a sngle yuan on the global secuity bill...

[AROUETLJ]

Of course there's the question of what being "top dog" really means. The US controls world destiny, but it cannot control oil prices, for instance. China can crush Europe with textile exports, but it has yet to come up with a welfare system.

My definition is simple. Winning every contest. And the US is doing a lot of that lately. Indeed, its success is growing, not slowing down. And in the few areas where other countries are better than the US (life expectancy, just to mention one), the US doesn't give a ****, so that effectively there is no contest at all, and the US still wins.

American century? It's an American Millennium.

[CMNot]

We're only five years in, a little early to be jumping the gun do you not think?

[vryhpyammoadded]

I’ve actually pictured the US being at the earliest stages of empire comparable to the UK around the late 1790’s – 1820 not the late period decline of the 20th century.
I figure the world aint seen nothing yet! woot

[Laworkerbee]

I hope the Euro-Corps is born soon to help out in world trouble spots,to take some of the heat off the U.S. in the Balkans and Africa.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Well - it's an interesting comparison, but I find the conclusions a bit... forced.


In the American case, it's a result of the unexpectedly protracted, bloody and costly Iraq war, in which a small group of foreign insurgents defies the mightiest military the world has seen; concern about the rising economic power of China and India; and a combination of imperial overstretch with socio-economic problems at home.

This statement alone reveals the inaccuracies (and biases) underlying the conclusions. 1900 deaths over 2+ years is not unexpectedly bloody - nor was the conflict ever promised to be easy, cheap, or fast. Despite all the media coverage, progress is being made, albeit slowly. As far as China/India etc. - name a time when we weren't worried about somebody economically (Europe & Japan come to mind). Unemployment is nowhere near historic highs - and in fact is probably closer to historic lows. Socio-economic problems at home - when have we not had them? When has anybody not had them? The article just seems like a bunch of overwrought poly-sci gobbledygook to me.

There's always some jackass with a "Repent! The End is Near!" sign...this one just happens to be selling anti-war t-shirts instead of Jesus. :lol:

[moughoun]

Well - it's an interesting comparison, but I find the conclusions a bit... forced.


In the American case, it's a result of the unexpectedly protracted, bloody and costly Iraq war, in which a small group of foreign insurgents defies the mightiest military the world has seen; concern about the rising economic power of China and India; and a combination of imperial overstretch with socio-economic problems at home.

This statement alone reveals the inaccuracies (and biases) underlying the conclusions. 1900 deaths over 2+ years is not unexpectedly bloody - nor was the conflict ever promised to be easy, cheap, or fast. Despite all the media coverage, progress is being made, albeit slowly. As far as China/India etc. - name a time when we weren't worried about somebody economically (Europe & Japan come to mind). Unemployment is nowhere near historic highs - and in fact is probably closer to historic lows. Socio-economic problems at home - when have we not had them? When has anybody not had them? The article just seems like a bunch of overwrought poly-sci gobbledygook to me.

There's always some jackass with a "Repent! The End is Near!" sign...this one just happens to be selling anti-war t-shirts instead of Jesus. :lol:
1900 dead?, oh your doing the let's not count Iraqi dead, good work, keep that off the balence book, 2shed's your a hell of a lot smarter then that :| , actually didn't Chaney say it would be both easy and cheap, win the war and the Iraqi's would pay for it?, agreed tough Tim Garton Ash does disappear up his own arse at time's

[Secret Squirrel]

actually didn't Chaney say it would be both easy and cheap, win the war and the Iraqi's would pay for it?, agreed tough Tim Garton Ash does disappear up his own arse at time's

Cheney said months ago that the insurgency is in its last throes. And before the war, we were told that U.S contributions would not exceed 1.7 billion with Iraq paying for the rest.

[ElHombre]

So this is no time for schadenfreude. It's a time for critical solidarity. A few far-sighted people in Washington are beginning to formulate a long-term American strategy of trying to create an international order that would protect the interests of liberal democracies even when American hyperpower has faded; and to encourage rising powers such as India and China to sign up to such an order. That is exactly what today's weary Titan should be doing, and we should help him do it.

alas, said Titan has yet to show any inclination to learn from its mistakes much less respectfully ask others for help. i also find the joke about iran having won the war interesting. not to brag, but i've said it before. just not as a joke. ;)

[2Sheds_Jackson]

1900 dead?, oh your doing the let's not count Iraqi dead, good work, keep that off the balence book, 2shed's your a hell of a lot smarter then that :| , actually didn't Chaney say it would be both easy and cheap, win the war and the Iraqi's would pay for it?, agreed tough Tim Garton Ash does disappear up his own arse at time's

Hey - if lives are part of the "cost" equation, who's are we supposed to count? Ours? Theirs? Anybody in Iraq? Hookers in Germany who were servicing US GI's on rotation? If we're talking about costs to the US, should we not be measuring US casualties?

Personally, I fail to see how a war is a success or failure depending upon how closely it sticks to some artificial timeline or budget.

IMHO the problem here is that we have become accustomed to quick, cheap, easy war with no blood - well at least some of us have. Politicians often fall into the trap of playing that stupid game, which is foolish. You cannot accurately predict such things, no matter how important it is to "sell" the plan. Anybody with 2 brain cells to rub together knows that as soon as boots hit the dirt, the first thing that's blown all to **** is the plan.

If WWII cost twice as much, and took twice as long - would it still not have been worth winning? And if it was longer and more expensive and we still won - would that victory not count? Is war now strictly a budgetary exercise that succeeds or fails by sticking to financial and timeline projections? We're not at the end of history just yet, and I would hope that people understand how shortsighted we will become when the future is measured by a 4 year yardstick.

[Lokos]

Like all great nations, the United States has a strictly limited life span in its current incarnation. I do not think it has begun its decline yet. But historical precedent makes that an inevitability in the long run. Anyone claiming otherwise is simply deluding themselves. If I had to take an educated guess as to when global power dynamics would experience a major shift in the United States' disfavour, I would say within the next 25-50 years. If I was being very conservative, I'd extend that timeframe to 50-75 years. Is this a good thing? Not particularly. Nor is it particularly bad. The thing about hegemons is that there is seldom such a thing as an 'ideally benevolent hegemon'. The United States certainly cannot be termed as such. Neither, of course, could potential successors (China, India).

Lokos

[Mailman]

Obviously non of you read history.

A good case would be to look at the Byzantine empire. It withstood crusades (up until the Genoans decided they wanted to rule the world), muslims, barbarians, internal conflict, famin, disease etc and everytime the empire was reborn.

It wasnt until the empire was destroyed by greed that they finally collapse and disappeared in to history.

To suggest that something as large and powerful as the American empire (I use the word empire VERY loosely here) will just knees up overnight is, unfortunately, only something that will happen in the minds of the anti-us goons out there :roll:

Then again...as someone has already said... the only other options are empires based on muslim ignorance or Chinese despotism. Personally...Id rather be an american puppet :)

Regards

Mailman

[Lokos]

he only other options are empires based on muslim ignorance or Chinese despotism.

Four cases of racism on MP.net in one day. Hardly a new record, but disappointing nonetheless.

Lokos

[Lokos]

Perhaps 'racism' was too strong a term (in part). 'Cultural supremacist rubbish' seems more fitting.

Lokos

[Vorian]

Obviously non of you read history.

A good case would be to look at the Byzantine empire. It withstood crusades (up until the Genoans decided they wanted to rule the world), muslims, barbarians, internal conflict, famin, disease etc and everytime the empire was reborn.

It wasnt until the empire was destroyed by greed that they finally collapse and disappeared in to history.

To suggest that something as large and powerful as the American empire (I use the word empire VERY loosely here) will just knees up overnight is, unfortunately, only something that will happen in the minds of the anti-us goons out there :roll:

Then again...as someone has already said... the only other options are empires based on muslim ignorance or Chinese despotism. Personally...Id rather be an american puppet :)

Regards

Mailman

Well, those times were different. You can't compare the Byzantine empire with the US, because they have a five-centuries gap between them.

[Laworkerbee]

Obviously non of you read history.

A good case would be to look at the Byzantine empire. It withstood crusades (up until the Genoans decided they wanted to rule the world), muslims, barbarians, internal conflict, famin, disease etc and everytime the empire was reborn.

It wasnt until the empire was destroyed by greed that they finally collapse and disappeared in to history.

To suggest that something as large and powerful as the American empire (I use the word empire VERY loosely here) will just knees up overnight is, unfortunately, only something that will happen in the minds of the anti-us goons out there :roll:

Then again...as someone has already said... the only other options are empires based on muslim ignorance or Chinese despotism. Personally...Id rather be an american puppet :)

Regards

Mailman

Well, those times were different. You can't compare the Byzantine empire with the US, because they have a five-centuries gap between them.

True and the Byzantine empire didn't have a Navy that controls the worlds oceans such as our today, nor nuclear weapons, nor new immigrants adding to her strength everyday...etc., etc.

[Lokos]

nor new immigrants adding to her strength everyday...etc., etc.

The Byzantines actually had a little too much of that.

Just FYI.

;)

Lokos

[Erik2a4]

Perhaps 'racism' was too strong a term (in part). 'Cultural supremacist rubbish' seems more fitting.

Lokos

I hate to say it, and I invite criticism as I do, but unfortunately not all cultures are created equal.

I am not defending prejudice here...however, I am asserting that the relativists statement that "we are all equal, with equal intelligence, talents, abilities, cultures, etc." is certainly inaccurate.

[Lokos]

Erik:

I'd agree with you to the extent that we are not all created the same. Difference is difference is difference. Racism and supremacism lurk in the bowels of finding perceived inferiority in difference.

Lokos

[Erik2a4]

Erik:

I'd agree with you to the extent that we are not all created the same. Difference is difference is difference. Racism and supremacism lurk in the bowels of finding perceived inferiority in difference.

Lokos

Touche! And I agree with you...however, I think you'll agree that it is a blurred line between the two...and that there is such a thing as valid supremacy (now that's a touchy subject, huh?)

...it bothers me when people claim that all opinions are equal and valid. They are not. There are many ways to live...however, some are far more productive to society than others.

I think a society or culture should look to erase or minimize it's faults, not embrace them as an equal and alternative way to live.

Sweden is superior to the Sudan in controlling murders. This I think we can all agree upon. I my eyes, this makes the Swedish culture superior in this respect...not in all respects, but most definitively in this aspect.

Does that make sense?

[Lokos]

Sweden is superior to the Sudan in controlling murders. This I think we can all agree upon. I my eyes, this makes the Swedish culture superior in this respect...not in all respects, but most definitively in this aspect.


Yes, I agree with this. And, from my point of view, this makes Sweden a more attractive proposition than Sudan. But, surely, there are such severe and obvious differences between the contextual aspects of the comparison (Sweden and Sudan respectively) that it is all but untenable.

I am a moral relativist in the sense that I cannot uphold any given culture over another. The differences are exceedingly contextual, multifaceted and far too irreconcilable. Such comparisons are, therefore, of limited value.


I think a society or culture should look to erase or minimize it's faults, not embrace them as an equal and alternative way to live.

See, what are faults? Order vs Anarchy, for example, is not a question of 'Good and Evil' in any sense but the most individual for the Western system adherent. There is nothing inherently 'Evil' about Anarchy. Yet, we perceive it as an evil of sorts, because our value system is more keenly felt to resonate with Order. But would that make Anarchy a fault in any system that does not share our emphasis on Order?

This portion of the discussion might get very philosophical...


...it bothers me when people claim that all opinions are equal and valid.

As long as one does not claim that, because the opinion doesn't correspond to his, one does not even have to acknowledge its legitimacy. What I'm saying here is that perceptions of opinion are highly individualistic and personal. What is true for you may not be the truth for any other person out there. Even hypothetically, your opinion would not be invalidated because of this.

So, do I think that all opinions are equal and valid? No, of course not. I have my own value system - it's likely akin to your own. But I try to acknowledge that my way is not the only way - and may not necessarily be the right way in any overarching sense.

Regards,
Lokos

[Erik2a4]

Sweden is superior to the Sudan in controlling murders. This I think we can all agree upon. I my eyes, this makes the Swedish culture superior in this respect...not in all respects, but most definitively in this aspect.


Yes, I agree with this. And, from my point of view, this makes Sweden a more attractive proposition than Sudan. But, surely, there are such severe and obvious differences between the contextual aspects of the comparison (Sweden and Sudan respectively) that it is all but untenable.

I am a moral relativist in the sense that I cannot uphold any given culture over another. The differences are exceedingly contextual, multifaceted and far too irreconcilable. Such comparisons are, therefore, of limited value.


I think a society or culture should look to erase or minimize it's faults, not embrace them as an equal and alternative way to live.

See, what are faults? Order vs Anarchy, for example, is not a question of 'Good and Evil' in any sense but the most individual for the Western system adherent. There is nothing inherently 'Evil' about Anarchy. Yet, we perceive it as an evil of sorts, because our value system is more keenly felt to resonate with Order. But would that make Anarchy a fault in any system that does not share our emphasis on Order?

This portion of the discussion might get very philosophical...


...it bothers me when people claim that all opinions are equal and valid.

As long as one does not claim that, because the opinion doesn't correspond to his, one does not even have to acknowledge its legitimacy. What I'm saying here is that perceptions of opinion are highly individualistic and personal. What is true for you may not be the truth for any other person out there. Even hypothetically, your opinion would not be invalidated because of this.

So, do I think that all opinions are equal and valid? No, of course not. I have my own value system - it's likely akin to your own. But I try to acknowledge that my way is not the only way - and may not necessarily be the right way in any overarching sense.

Regards,
Lokos

Bwahahahahaha :lol:

Then, my friend, in the interest of time I will say that we will agree to disagree, since the end result of this would be all of my philosophy, situational ethics, morality, economics, and sociology books surrounding me with scribbled notes from school, and quotes from Plato to Adam Smith to Betrand Russell flying about.

In the meantime, though, I really need to enjoy a beautiful day outside at the beach, and work on my Serbo-Croat pickup lines for a future trip. :D

Edit: but if you desire, we can continue via PM. I have an extended trip coming up and so any good conversation would be a nice distraction.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Holy smokes - this thread should be put up on kurzweilai.net - yer all making my head hurt just about as much. Good stuff though.

I'd only add that concepts like culturally "better" or "worse" can have very real consequences in a society. I mean - take the Muslim world for example - their strict doctrine makes an industrial/scientific/socially progressive society much more difficult to achieve (maybe impossible?). And since the nature of the world is competition, the culture will eventually be minimized if in fact an industrial society proves to be more prosperous. So while I suppose one could argue that subjugating women cannot be said to be "good" or "bad" with any objective authority, in the real world, it robs their culture of vital resources.

[vryhpyammoadded]

Like all great nations, the United States has a strictly limited life span in its current incarnation. I do not think it has begun its decline yet. But historical precedent makes that an inevitability in the long run. Anyone claiming otherwise is simply deluding themselves. If I had to take an educated guess as to when global power dynamics would experience a major shift in the United States' disfavour, I would say within the next 25-50 years. If I was being very conservative, I'd extend that timeframe to 50-75 years. Is this a good thing? Not particularly. Nor is it particularly bad. The thing about hegemons is that there is seldom such a thing as an 'ideally benevolent hegemon'. The United States certainly cannot be termed as such. Neither, of course, could potential successors (China, India).

Lokos

Well put. I agree with this tending on the low end of conservative estimates. On the other hand, I feel the odds of the US blowing itself apart with a major social uprising are on the rise, interrupting said guestimate.

[Lokos]

In the meantime, though, I really need to enjoy a beautiful day outside at the beach, and work on my Serbo-Croat pickup lines for a future trip. Very Happy

You've got your priorities straight, Erik! Go forth and work on your tan.

:)


Then, my friend, in the interest of time I will say that we will agree to disagree, since the end result of this would be all of my philosophy, situational ethics, morality, economics, and sociology books surrounding me with scribbled notes from school, and quotes from Plato to Adam Smith to Betrand Russell flying about.

It would have been an epic battle. ;)

But yes, in the interests of time... Hehe...


I'd only add that concepts like culturally "better" or "worse" can have very real consequences in a society.

Absolutely.


take the Muslim world for example - their strict doctrine makes an industrial/scientific/socially progressive society much more difficult to achieve (maybe impossible?)

Currently major tracts of the Islamic world are experiencing the side effects of what has become a largely passivist conceptualisation of existence. Passivism and fatalism are the death of progress and individualist perspective. I agree with you in that there are very specific socio-cultural markers that have halted the progress of many Muslim nations, in addition to more tangible barriers to success such as geo-strategic positioning, access to resources etc.

Lokos

[MichaelF]

To compare to the Roman Hegemony (250 BC-1450 AD): We're more in the "Punic Wars" of the Republic, than the "Fall of Constantinople" of the Eastern Empire.

America's star is on the acension. We're just waiting for Scipio (Africanus), Caesar, or Augustus. China being Carthage and the Mohammedans being the Gauls. Europe are the Greeks.

Caveat: it could all end overnight, of course. Plague, economic meltdown, natural disaster, grossly mishandled military fiasco, etc. Unlikely, but it's possible.

[Vorian]

To compare to the Roman Hegemony (250 BC-1450 AD): We're more in the "Punic Wars" of the Republic, than the "Fall of Constantinople" of the Eastern Empire.

America's star is on the acension. We're just waiting for Scipio (Africanus), Caesar, or Augustus. China being Carthage and the Mohammedans being the Gauls. Europe are the Greeks.

Caveat: it could all end overnight, of course. Plague, economic meltdown, natural disaster, grossly mishandled military fiasco, etc. Unlikely, but it's possible.

Even if an American 'Caesar' appeared, he would do nothing. Reasons:

1)The politicians wouldn't let him do whatever he wanted.
2)American society can't bear the casualties of war. Only 2000 Americans have died in Iraq(tiny number comparing to Iraqi and guerilla casualties), but still there are protests everywhere.

And staying in the Roman-American comparison....Caesar and Augustus rose in power during the Roman civil wars. I don't think you want this to happen to your country.

[Atlantic Friend]

To compare to the Roman Hegemony (250 BC-1450 AD): We're more in the "Punic Wars" of the Republic, than the "Fall of Constantinople" of the Eastern Empire.

America's star is on the acension. We're just waiting for Scipio (Africanus), Caesar, or Augustus. China being Carthage and the Mohammedans being the Gauls. Europe are the Greeks.

Caveat: it could all end overnight, of course. Plague, economic meltdown, natural disaster, grossly mishandled military fiasco, etc. Unlikely, but it's possible.

Does that mean a US Caesar will soon cross the Nile to invade and submit Mohammedan tribes, enslave Europe to form an Eastern American Empire ?

And does that mean US Senators will kill the victorious Caesar, and let the next US Emperors be chosen by the US Army, until the New Rome is so busy fighting its dissident factions and its foreign enemies that it will crumble and leave a great big black hole where civilization had bloomed ?

[MichaelF]

Note: your analogy breaks down, if you keep strictly to a Roman timeline.

Augustus (Octavian) was appointed Princeps by the Senate. Ruled 45 years.

Tiberius, chosen by Augustus, succeeds. Rules OK for a while, then becomes insane (cause unknown).

Caligula gets off to a good start, then rapidly becomes a loony.

Claudius.

Nero.

Year of the 4 Emperors. Smoke clears and Vespasian (fresh from stomping Zealots in Iudea) emerges as Emperor, via control/loyalty of the Legions. Vespasian and his next two successors, Titus and Domition, are effective Emperors.

5 Good Emperors (Cultural/Economic height of the Roman Empire).
Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antonius Pius, Marcus Aurelius.

[Laworkerbee]

Note: your analogy breaks down, if you keep strictly to a Roman timeline.

Augustus (Octavian) was appointed Princeps by the Senate. Ruled 45 years.

Tiberius, chosen by Augustus, succeeds. Rules OK for a while, then becomes insane (cause unknown).

Caligula gets off to a good start, then rapidly becomes a loony.

Claudius.

Nero.

Year of the 4 Emperors. Smoke clears and Vespasian (fresh from stomping Zealots in Iudea) emerges as Emperor, via control/loyalty of the Legions. Vespasian and his next two successors, Titus and Domition, are effective Emperors.

5 Good Emperors (Cultural/Economic height of the Roman Empire).
Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antonius Pius, Marcus Aurelius.

Haha you rule MichaelF woot

[MichaelF]

Note: your analogy breaks down, if you keep strictly to a Roman timeline.

Augustus (Octavian) was appointed Princeps by the Senate. Ruled 45 years.

Tiberius, chosen by Augustus, succeeds. Rules OK for a while, then becomes insane (cause unknown).

Caligula gets off to a good start, then rapidly becomes a loony.

Claudius.

Nero.

Year of the 4 Emperors. Smoke clears and Vespasian (fresh from stomping Zealots in Iudea) emerges as Emperor, via control/loyalty of the Legions. Vespasian and his next two successors, Titus and Domition, are effective Emperors.

5 Good Emperors (Cultural/Economic height of the Roman Empire).
Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antonius Pius, Marcus Aurelius.

Haha you rule MichaelF woot

Nah, I just did my Lower Degree (Associate of Arts) in Classics (Latin and Greco-Roman history. I skipped the Classical Greek language course because I was exhausted from 2 semesters of intensive Latin... ). My Bachelors program is Molecular Biology, and no, that doesnt make any sense at all...

[vryhpyammoadded]

And does that mean US Senators will kill the victorious Caesar, and let the next US Emperors be chosen by the US Army, until the New Rome is so busy fighting its dissident factions and its foreign enemies that it will crumble and leave a great big black hole where civilization had bloomed ?

I can see it now, Hillary's blood stained power suit, a host of secret service surrounding, Bill holding her hand. "and you too Bill" gasp, sigh, drip, drip...
In walk the joint chiefs, 11 billion for the presidency, 12 billion...

rofl

[Mailman]

Obviously non of you read history.

A good case would be to look at the Byzantine empire. It withstood crusades (up until the Genoans decided they wanted to rule the world), muslims, barbarians, internal conflict, famin, disease etc and everytime the empire was reborn.

It wasnt until the empire was destroyed by greed that they finally collapse and disappeared in to history.

To suggest that something as large and powerful as the American empire (I use the word empire VERY loosely here) will just knees up overnight is, unfortunately, only something that will happen in the minds of the anti-us goons out there :roll:

Then again...as someone has already said... the only other options are empires based on muslim ignorance or Chinese despotism. Personally...Id rather be an american puppet :)

Regards

Mailman

Well, those times were different. You can't compare the Byzantine empire with the US, because they have a five-centuries gap between them.

True and the Byzantine empire didn't have a Navy that controls the worlds oceans such as our today, nor nuclear weapons, nor new immigrants adding to her strength everyday...etc., etc.

Actually...they had one of the largest and most powerful navies of the era.

Mailman

[Kilgor]

What will cause the US problems though is a ageing and sickening (read fat) population, growing disparity between rich and poor, uncontrolled budget deficets and more jobs going to india and china.

[Jobu]

It's the Guardian.

Give me a break.

[Durandal]

Well-researched article, but if the author thinks the US will lose its position as top dog, he can dream on.

Agreed....but the risk of the US losing SOME of it's top dog status is QUITE serious.

Every dollar spent in Iraq, Afghanistan, and fighting the War on Terror is one less left to invest in infrastructure, education, and R&D.

Meanwhile, countries like China benefit finacially by not having to spend a sngle yuan on the global secuity bill...

We have a winner!

[Mailman]

5 Good Emperors (Cultural/Economic height of the Roman Empire).
Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antonius Pius, Marcus Aurelius.

Have you left Maximus out on purpose or what? rofl

Mailman

[Mailman]

Well, those times were different. You can't compare the Byzantine empire with the US, because they have a five-centuries gap between them.

Its an analogy used to draw the reader towards the idea that empires do not just knees up over night. They can die and be reborne many times before the end comes.

To suggest that the America empire would just disappear overnight is science fiction at its best. America's empire is so intertwined with the rest of the world that if America sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold :)

Mailman

[Durandal]

America's empire is so intertwined with the rest of the world that if America sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold :)

Completely irrelevant. I also think that if it were to happen over a year or two, that it would be, historically speaking, happen "overnight".

However, comparing the Byzantine empire with ours is a joke. There are few similarities if any, and the level of technological, educational, economical, and medicinal advances have a tendency to nullify anything rational anyways.