PDA

View Full Version : The Roman Empire and America today


kenshiroIT
02-22-2006, 01:21 PM
Hi to yall I found this interesting article on the web (look at the link below) wery wery nice.

enjoy!

The Lessons of the Roman Empire for America Today
by J. Rufus Fears, Ph.D.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Pol...ophy/hl917.cfm

December 19, 2005



I am honored to give a lecture named after Russell Kirk, who told us to ponder the permanent things, such as history and human nature. It is about human nature and history that I want to speak to you this afternoon.

We are on patrol today in Iraq. Men and women of the United States armed forces in armored vehicles patrol the streets of Baghdad. They pass in the way of so many who have come before them: the Egyptian charioteers of Ramses II, the Macedonian phalanx of Alexander the Great, the Roman legionnaires of Cae*sar and Trajan, the Crusaders of Richard the Lion-Hearted, the legionnaires of Napoleon, the Camel Corps of Lawrence of Arabia.

All of these have come through the Middle East. Many of them have come with the best of intentions, by their lights, to bring stability, even freedom to the Middle East. All have passed away. The Middle East has been the graveyard of empires.

In the course of history, we have come to take up that burden. We live in a time as momentous as that of the American Revolution, the Civil War, the days after Pearl Harbor. In each of these watersheds in our his*tory, we have not only taken up the burden, but we have advanced the cause of freedom.

In the American Revolution, we saw to it that a nation could be established under liberty and law. In the American Civil War, we purged ourselves of the great evil of slavery so that we could go on and become a model for the world. In World War II and the Cold War that followed, we advanced the cause of freedom so that today, more people live in free*dom than at any other time in history. That is the result of America bearing this burden.

I think that September 11 is just as important a date as Pearl Harbor, and we now advance into a new and dangerous era. Think of Winston Churchill when he said how Britain set out across unknown seas, through uncharted waters towards unknown shores, guided only by the beacon of freedom. We have another guide, and that is history and the les*sons of history. For the founders of our country, his*tory was the most important single discipline that every citizen of a free republic should study.

Historical Information vs. Historical Thought

I want to talk to you about historical thought. There is a great deal of historical knowledge around today. We are awash with books on history, massive biographies about historical figures. Information on history is much broader than ever before, but there is very little historical thought across both spectrums in the political world.

As Lord Acton said, historical thought is far more important than historical knowledge. Historical thought is using the lessons of history to under*stand the present and to make decisions for the future. In other words, it was by using history as an analytical tool and making use of the lessons of his*tory that our founders brought our Constitution into being.

Ponder the miracle of that Constitution. When it was drafted, we were 13 little republics struggling along the eastern seaboard. When George Wash*ington wanted to go somewhere, he went exactly the same way that Cicero did: He walked, he sailed, he rode a horse. If he wanted to send a message, it went the same way that Cicero sent one or Caesar sent one: by horse, by sail, by walking.

That same Constitution gives us liberty, law, and prosperity, though we are now the superpower of the world. We could sit down right now, and with your laptop you could correspond with the Antipodes of Australia. We live in a world of technology that would have amazed even Benjamin Franklin.

They were able to create this Constitution because they learned from history, and the history that was most instructive for them was the history of the Roman world, the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. They crafted our Constitution to reflect the balanced constitution of the Roman Republic, with the sovereignty of the people guided by the wisdom of the Senate, with a powerful exec*utive in the form of the commander in chief, the consul. But they also understood, with the Romans, that no constitution, however good on paper, would work unless it was vitalized by civic virtue, by the willingness of each individual to sub*ordinate his own good to the good of the commu*nity as a whole. To use an old-fashioned word, patriotism must vitalize every constitution.

The founders hoped that, in America, we would see these virtues of ancient Rome, and they knew that under such a constitution the United States would grow into an empire. They already spoke of a rising empire of America. They hoped that Rome of the republic would be our enduring model, but they feared, and rightly so, that one day, perhaps today, our model would be Rome of the Caesars, Rome of the first and second centuries A.D. For Rome of the Caesars and the United States today are the only two absolute superpowers that have existed in history.

By an absolute superpower I mean a nation that is dominant militarily, politically, economically, and culturally. The United States is absolutely dominant militarily, politically, economically, and we dominate the world culturally. We may never produce a Beethoven or a Bach, a Goethe or a Shakespeare. That is not how our culture dominates. It is our music, our McDonald’s, our popular culture that spreads all over the globe. Look at a terrorist. He will be holding someone hostage while wearing sneak*ers, Mickey Mouse tee-shirt on, listening to terrible music and dreaming of a McDonald’s when this is all over. That is how our culture rules the world.

The Roman Empire: A Vast Superpower

The Roman Empire of the first and second cen*turies A.D. was just such a superpower. It stretched from the moors of Scotland out to the Tigris and Euphrates River valleys of Iraq today, and from the North Seas of Germany to the sands of the Sahara.

If you were going to take a trip through the Roman Empire in the second century A.D., you would start off in the United Kingdom, cross over to Belgium and Holland, through Germany and France, on down to Switzerland and Austria, and to Hungry and Roma*nia and Bulgaria, down through what was Yugoslavia and to Greece and then on to Turkey, through Syria, Lebanon, into Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Egypt. We would pass on into Libya, into Tunisia, Algeria, and up into Morocco and then on up into Spain.

If you were to take that journey today, even in the day of the euro, you would need to change your money at least a dozen times, you’d need a dozen visas, and there would be places you would not want to go. But in those days, one language—the language of Rome, Latin—carried you anywhere in that empire. Or it could be Greek, which was equally an official language of the empire.

With the Greek language, St. Paul could travel all over the eastern Mediterranean, preaching and talk*ing himself out of trouble, for there was also one set of laws that governed that vast empire. When St. Paul is arrested and the tribune gets ready to give him a beating, Paul says, “You can’t beat me; that is a violation of my civil rights as a Roman.” The tribune says, “Let me see your citizenship papers,” and Paul shows them to him, and the tribune says, “Where did you get those? How did you get them? They cost me a huge bribe to get to be a Roman citizen.” Then he’s worried that Paul is going to bring him up on charges of violating his civil rights.

So the law of Rome protects you all over this vast empire, and there is one currency, the currency of Rome. There is this vast geographical expanse and within it a peace and prosperity that many of those areas would not know again until the 20th centu*ry—and some of those areas still do not know today—under the immense majesty of the Roman Empire. It was a time so peaceful that the Roman historian Tacitus in the second century A.D. com*plained that there were no wars in his days, and thus he could not write about the glories the way that his predecessor Livy had been able to.

Presiding over all was the Roman emperor. He was the commander in chief. The office of emper*or—imperator means nothing but commander in chief—had evolved out of the executive power of the consul of the old republic, and the Roman Empire of the first and second century A.D. brought forth a series of leaders with few equals in history.

Whenever you’re talking about Rome, you must fight against the nonsense of a movie like Gladiator. You must fight against the nonsense of this program called Rome, some degraded spectacle on HBO.

Julius Caesar; Augustus; the grim and remorse*less Tiberius, who governed the provinces with fairness and justice; Vespasian; Titus, the darling of the Roman people; Nerva; Trajan; Hadrian; Antoni*nus Pius; and Marcus Aurelius—small wonder that Gibbon, who knew the history of Rome, wrote that if a person were to pick that one period in the his*tory of the human race when mankind was happi*est, he would, without hesitation, take that period of the second century A.D.

In addition, Rome had a small but efficient civil service that educated its members to this burden of governing with justice and with individual free*dom: men like Pliny the Elder and his nephew, Pliny the Younger, the finest kind of civil servant, and a bureaucracy so efficient and so capable that monstrosities like Caligula and Nero were nothing but a small blip on the scale of imperial progress and the guarantee of individual rights.

Three Components of Freedom

For the Romans understood that freedom really is an ideal of three components, which are not all mutually inclusive: national freedom, freedom from foreign domination; then political freedom, the freedom to vote and to choose your magistrates; and finally, individual freedom, the freedom to live as you choose as long as you harm no one else.

National freedom was largely extinguished under the Romans, and many said it was a good thing, for in the ancient world it had brought noth*ing but war and turmoil. Political liberty was more extended than has sometimes been thought, because the Romans believed in a decentralized form of government. The emperor made all the decisions for foreign policy, but there was a great deal of local self-control. But it was individual free*dom, the freedom to live as you choose, that had a guarantee and extension under the Roman emper*ors that it had never had before under the old free city-states of Greece and the Roman Republic.

All of this was guarded by one of the best and one of the most cost-efficient armies in history—360,000 Roman soldiers guarded this vast frontier. The empire was connected by a superb network of mag*nificent Roman roads that you can still travel over today. In Rome you can see a bridge built in 63 B.C. that still carries traffic. All over that empire, every day, pure water was brought through aqueducts that gave the ordinary Roman a larger supply of fresh pure drinking water, with all that means for hygiene, than an inhabitant of Chicago or Paris had in 1920s.

And for all of this the ordinary Roman worked only two days a year to pay his taxes, because the emperors understood that with the money left in the hands of the individuals, it was then invested.

This brought prosperity under a free market economy and an economic unity that the Mediter*ranean world would not see again until our own day. Cities from London in Britannia, Pergamum in Asia Minor, Alexandria in Egypt, Cologne in Ger*many became flourishing centers of trade. If you were redecorating your house in Rome, you could have marble cut in Egypt, Thessaly in Greece, and Numidia in North Africa shipped to your house and installed in a matter of months.

It was a time of social mobility. You could begin life as a slave, purchase your freedom, and go on to become a billionaire by the standards of the day. It was also an age of cultural diversity. The Roman emperors believed that it was part of their mission to foster the culture of others. So Roman emperors built temples to the gods of Gaul, to the gods of Egypt—in fact, most of the great temples you see today as you go up the Nile are results of the Roman age in Egypt. The Roman emperor was wor*shipped as Pharaoh by the people of Egypt. At the same time, they believed that every nation, every empire must be bound together by a common set of cultural values founded in religion.

Their common set of cultural values was the her*itage of classical Greece, and Rome became the bearer of the culture and civilization of Greece. The plays of Euripides and Sophocles were performed in the theatres of Spain and Pompeii to audiences which could understand them put on in the origi*nal Greek. Thucydides became the model for the historian Tacitus, even as Herodotus had been the model for the historian Livy. The sculptures of clas*sical Greece informed and shaped the sculptures of the Roman Empire, even as the Pantheon was built to portray new spiritual values but building upon the great architectural legacy in Greece.

The Romans believed there must be an imperial divinity, Jupiter Optimus Maximus, the supreme god who had given an empire to the Roman people. His temple decorated the forum of every Roman city throughout that vast empire. To honor the gods of Rome, by the year 212 A.D., every freeborn inhabitant of the Roman Empire became a citizen, protected by the laws of Rome, for it was also an age of creativity and innovation in which the cul*tural foundations for the next thousand years of European civilization were laid.

In architecture, the Pantheon, designed by the Emperor Hadrian—warrior, administrator, archi*tect, poet—expressed in concrete the new concept of monotheism, of one god who governs the entire universe the way one emperor governs the world. There in the Pantheon, with its use of space to con*vey a mystical religious experience, was laid the foundation for the Gothic cathedrals of medieval Europe or Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.

In narrative art, the column of Trajan, built to celebrate his victories over the Dacians in 105 and 106, laid the foundation for 1,000 years of Chris*tian art in which, for those who could not read, the narrative of divine achievement and of virtue and salvation was laid out in pictures.

In science, it was the age of Galen, whose text*books would still be the basis of European medical education in the 15th century. It was the age of Ptolemy, who drew his map of the world as he knew it. Ptolemy’s calculations were slightly off, and he showed that China was closer to Europe than it really was; and poring over that map, Chris*topher Columbus came to the conclusion that he could sail to the West and come to China.

It was the age of spirituality in which, from emperor down to peasant in the field, the soul became the prime concern. It was the age in which monotheism began to grow and develop and cults of “Savior Gods” arose and individual salvation became the central concern. It was the age which would give birth to both, ultimately, Islam and Christianity.

And it was the age in which Roman law laid the foundation for the system of jurisprudence that still governs half the world. Roman law was the creation of an earlier republic now refined for a world empire. This was the age of Roman jurists like Ulpi*an, who founded the law of this empire on the ide*als of natural law, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalien*able rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That was jus naturale, the law of God based upon absolute right and wrong. It was their job as jurists, and then as practical judges, to translate that into the jus gentium, the law of mankind, or into the jus civile, the law of the indi*vidual empire of Rome; but its foundation was still the ideal: that all men are created equal.

Rome, Germany, and the Middle East

This was the creativity of the Roman Empire in this age of individual freedom and prosperity. For two centuries it achieved its goal, but it would ulti*mately decline and fall, and the question is, why? Historical events come about because of human decisions that are made, and the Romans failed to solve two critical issues of foreign policy: the Mid*dle East and Central Europe.

The Romans began their intervention in the Mid*dle East in the second century B.C. They came first out of a sense of self-defense: to bring order and stability to that region. They then became enmeshed in the politics of the region, and by the first century B.C., they attempted to establish client states based upon fundamental Roman institutions including a degree of political liberty. They then found themselves drawn into military occupation and then into direct rule until, by the second cen*tury A.D., almost the entire Middle East was under Roman direct annexation.

But there was still the problem of Iran. That vast empire was basically passive as long as it was left alone by the Romans, but Julius Caesar had a solu*tion for Parthia, for the empire of Iran, and it was conquest. In 44 B.C., he was planning the expedi*tion, first to conquer Parthia and then to swing back through the Black Sea region and conquer and annex all the Germanic tribes.

He was assassinated, and his successor, his adopted son Augustus, perhaps the shrewdest statesman ever to live, decided that Parthia was too much for the Romans to absorb. He came up with an exit strategy by which the Parthians and the Romans would recognize spheres of influence, and Iran stayed outside of the Roman domination.

But the Middle East became a quagmire for the Romans—civil war in Judea, trouble in Egypt— and the Romans poured in more and more of their treasure and stretched the limits of their army as far as they could be stretched. It became a constant drain, and, more than that, it became a drain upon the focus of the emperors. As a result, they neglect*ed Central Europe. Again, by a decision made by Augustus, the Romans failed to absorb the Ger*manic tribes, divided into numerous ethnic groups but all ferocious warriors and fiercely independent.

Then the imponderable happened.

In the third century A.D., Iran changed from a passive to a powerfully offensive nation under a revitalized religion, a monotheist religion, the wor*ship of Ahura Mazda, the Lord of Truth, the reli*gion that had once been prophesied by Zoroaster. Iran began to sweep into the frontiers of the Roman Empire, which were too stretched in terms of its military and other commitments. As a result, the Persian forces swept right through the fairest prov*inces of the Roman East. At the same time, the Ger*manic tribes formed new federations and coalitions and swept into the Roman Empire in the West, including Gaul and Britain.

Rome recovered from this crisis, but in a form that left it utterly different than before. It had once rested upon the back of a strong and vigorous and loyal middle class. Now every aspect of Roman society became rigid, formalized. The army became ever larger, ever more inefficient; the bureaucracy became ever larger to collect ever more taxes; and the very spirit and, ultimately, the loyalty of the middle class was destroyed. Finally, in the seventh century A.D. under the banners of Islam, the East swept all the way into Spain. In Italy, barbarian German chieftains sat in the half-ruined palaces of the Caesars.

kenshiroIT
02-22-2006, 01:22 PM
Lessons for Today’s World

If we were to draw lessons from the Roman expe*rience for today, I would begin by telling you that, as the founders thought, since human nature never changes, similar circumstances will always produce similar events. But I would say at the same time, as Churchill did, that history is both a guide and an impediment to understanding the present.

Lesson one would be that liberal democracies do not make for good neighbors. The liberal democracies of Greece led to constant war. Ultimately, the rise of the Roman Empire was the only solution to a Medi*terranean world that had known nothing but warfare, frequently between competing democratic nation-states. The peace and prosperity of the Roman Empire was brought about by subordinating those liberal democracies to an all-encompassing imperial rule.

The Romans were not afraid to take up that bur*den of imperial rule. As the poet Virgil said, the Greeks will always be our superior in literature and sculpture, even in science. It is the destiny of the Romans to wear down the haughty and to raise up the weak. That is how they saw their mission in bringing peace.

Second, the institutions of freedom are very dif*ficult to transfer. The Roman Republic was a nation of liberty and, under law, a democratic republic. That could not be transferred to other parts of the world. The Romans came to understand that free*dom is not a universal value: that people over and over again have chosen security, which is what the Roman Empire brought, over the awesome respon*sibilities of self-government.

Third, the Romans learned that you cannot gov*ern a world empire with a constitution designed for a small city-state. That is what Rome was when it was founded in 753, and when it became a republic in 509 B.C., it was a small republic by the Tiber River. That constitution could not bear the burden of a world empire, and the military dictatorship of the Caesars was a result of the decision the Romans had to make. Did they wish to remain a free repub*lic or be a superpower? They chose to remain a superpower and to accept the military dictatorship of Julius Caesar and his successors.

That was their fourth lesson: Once you have begun upon the path of being a superpower, there is no drawing back. Thucydides had already paint*ed that portrait at the time of the Athenian empire, the democratic Athens and its great empire. Once you have become a power, you cannot step back from it; you have aroused too much hatred. You must follow that path to the end, and the Romans chose to follow it to the end.

And because they did, because they assumed that burden, they give us their fifth lesson: What ulti*mately matters is the legacy that you leave behind, for all things human pass away. The Romans called their city the eternal city, and the emperors evoked the theme of Aeternitas, but they knew that one day Rome would pass away. But it left behind a legacy: this legacy of law, this legacy of architectural, artistic creation, but above all the spiritual legacy.

For that might be our final lesson: You are never sure what your legacy is going to be. If you had come up to Hadrian, or if you had come up to Tibe*rius, and asked, “What is your legacy?” they would have said, “It’s Roman law; it’s these great build*ings.” None of them would have said it was that spiritual force born on the far frontiers of their empire in the form of a teacher put to death as a traitor to the Roman order.

So we must ask ourselves the question: Are we willing to follow that path of empire? Do we have the reserves of moral courage that the Romans did to undertake that burden of empire? And what will be our legacy? For I am quite convinced that of all the people who have passed through the Middle East, of all the people who have passed through history, there has been none so generous in spirit, so determined to leave the world a better place, and so imbued with the technology and the wealth and the opportunity to leave a legacy far more enduring and far better than that of the Romans.

Selected Questions

Q: One of the final blows to the declining Roman Empire was the rise and spread of Islam that start*ed in the seventh century, and the following centu*ry the Roman Empire collapsed. Do you imply some lesson to be learned by the sole superpower of today?

A: That’s a very good question, and the short answer is “Yes.” It goes back to Thucydides. For Thucydides, Pericles is the model of how to solve everything by reason and persuasion, and Pericles lays out a very careful plan by which Athens will become the superpower of Greece.

You can never deal, however, with the impon*derables. The accident or what you cannot reckon will happen does happen, and no Roman emperor, no matter how imbued with foresight, could have imagined that the peninsula of Arabia would be united under a mighty and great warrior like Muhammad and that this force would pour out of Arabia and sweep over the Roman East and all the way across to North Africa.

I think the lesson is: Where, in our own day, is that great coalition and energy of force developing that will one day topple the existing order the same way the Germans turned into a coalition power, stronger than anything the Romans could mount? Foresight is the ability to look into the future, to come up with solutions that are good for the short term and the long term. Foresight is the most pre*cious quality a leader can have, and it is the rarest.

Q: You mentioned that liberal democracies make bad neighbors, and that stands in stark contrast with our current belief that democracies won’t attack one another and, therefore, all the world should be a democracy. How do we extrapolate that lesson to today’s world?

A: There are two ways of doing that. One is what most contemporary analysts do when they refer to the ancient world: define out all other democra*cies. They say the democracy of Athens was not a liberal democracy because individual rights were not guaranteed. That’s just nonsense. The individ*ual Athenian had a core of rights guaranteed as much as anything we have today, such as the right to trial by jury, freedom of speech, so it was as much a liberal democracy as ours is by its own lights. Sparta, too, was a democracy. Yet Greece was literally destroyed in its greatest age by the long war between Athens and Sparta. It was essen*tially a war over competing ideas of freedom.

Moreover, the most democratic century in histo*ry was the 20th century, and it was a century of the two greatest wars. Hitler came to power in what was a democracy, the Weimar Republic. So I think it is a very false notion that liberal democracies do not go to war with each other. We’re simply pour*ing that into the old framework of the nation-state, which has been so unstable in the 20th century.

Q: It is in a sense ironic that this lecture is named for Russell Kirk, one of the early “paleoconserva*tives” who would, like Pat Buchanan, favor a republic rather than an empire. What is the fate of those of us who would prefer our American Republic rather than the imperial superpower role into which it seems to be segued?

A: The American people will have to make that decision as to whether we want to be a free repub*lic or a superpower. That is a crossroads that we will come to just as the Romans did. They first attempted to govern their empire with this old constitution, and it simply did not work. It is, however, possible to adopt a constitution so that you preserve the essence of political liberty and, at the same time, develop the institutions that can govern such an empire and preserve and expand the position of a superpower that brings peace and prosperity to the world.

We do not like to call ourselves an empire, though some of the founders didn’t mind using the term, but it’s a fairly neutral term. It is nothing more than imperium in Latin or what the Greeks called arche. It is “rule,” and it is a neutral term; “imperium” can be used the same as “good rule.”

The other lesson is the hybris of empire. The great danger of empire is the inability to see your*self as others see you. The world is filled with examples of imperial nations, like France, that were convinced they were bringing liberal ideas to areas that simply did not want them. That hybris of being so sure that your ideas are right for everyone is one of the greatest of dangers. That’s why Herodotus began his history with the Trojan War and then went on to the Persian Wars. For him, that was the great example of an empire that destroyed itself through hybris, the outrageous arrogance of think*ing you were wise when you are not wise. At least one check upon that is the lessons of history.

Q: Is it your position that we have not yet crossed that point such that we have entered an imperial age and thus lament the fall of the republic?

A: I would say we’re very much like Rome around 88 B.C. We’re still a republic, we still have our free elections, and we still have a great deal of opportu*nity. But in 88 B.C., the full dimension of Rome’s involvement in the Middle East and its role of superpower began to come home to it. They chose to go down a road of intense partisan politics, fighting over small issues rather than seeing the big vision and, for a while, lacking leaders with a kind of foresight. So you can still enter the imperi*al age as a free republic and maintain that free republic.

Q: Your talk raises the big question in my mind of whether or not there are any historical examples of potential empires that looked at history and decid*ed to remain republics or something else, and suc*cessfully so.

A: Yes. The best instance is that of Sparta. Sparta had a balanced constitution that was much admired by our founders. Sparta went to war in 431 against the Athenians to preserve, they believed, the liberty of Greece, which was the lib*erty of these small, independent nation-states. Having gained that victory, they then tried to gov*ern an empire and found it impossible and with*drew. They had already made that decision even more dramatically at the end of the Persian Wars; in 479, they were in place to become the dominant power in Greece, and they returned home.

Herodotus ends his history with a very curious story in which a Persian goes to King Cyrus, the founder of the Persian Empire who, for the Greeks, was the model of prudence and moderation, the very antithesis of hybris. The Persian says, “We ought to rule the whole world now. We’ve got the chance.” And Cyrus says, “No. You will end up becoming slaves of others. Let us stay home and govern ourselves well.”

As the reader of this history knew, the Persians had not followed that advice and had fallen drasti*cally. So Sparta would be the best instance of a nation that looked at the prospects of world empire and stepped back to be a republic.

J. Rufus Fears, Ph.D., David Ross Boyd Professor of Classics and G. T. and Libby Blankenship Chair in the History of Liberty at the University of Oklahoma, is the author of several books and numerous articles on ancient history and the lessons of history for our own day. He has produced for The Teaching Company a series of books on tape, including A History of Free*dom, Famous Greeks, Famous Romans, Winston Churchill, and Books That Have Made History.


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Pol...ophy/hl917.cfm

kenshiroIT
02-22-2006, 01:25 PM
noooo I posted the article in the wrong place, it should have been placed in teh politcal discussions.

Im sorry !

Hullebullen
02-22-2006, 01:59 PM
To say that Islam was responsible for the final blows at the declining Roman empire is stretching it more than just a little bit. The Roman empire as we know it and think of today when the Roman empire is mentioned was already gone, at a time when there was no Islam.

theclash
02-22-2006, 03:02 PM
Which is true...unless maybe he's accounting the latter Roman Empire as the East Roman Empire = Byzantium.

Constantinople was eventually sacked by the Turks (Muslims) in 1453.

But the city was sacked by the Fourth crusade 250 years before that so I don't think you can blame the Muslims for chipping away at Byzantium.

Otherwise, if we're talking about the Roman Empire proper, ie Western Empire circa 5th centruy AD, then no Muslims didn't crash that particular party.

ed316
02-22-2006, 03:16 PM
America is not Rome. America is a democracy not a monarchy. The Roman Empire controlled the Mediteranian ONLY. The decline of Rome was due to leadership.

Noble713
02-22-2006, 06:20 PM
Interesting read. I think he makes a few good points about having to make up our minds about being a superpower or not, and how, if we go that road, you really can't half-ass it. However, some of his other conclusions and historical perspectives (the aforementioned Islamic toppling of Rome) seem way off base.

thegman
02-22-2006, 10:29 PM
Rome fell because they lost control of their borders, due to the huge size of the empire. The fall of Rome could have be delayed (not stopped) if the Romans allowed the "barbarians" into Rome. They also, like ed216 said, they had no real leadership near the end. The leaders were all crazy and most were killed at a very young age, due to fighting between the familes. America doesnt have any of these problems in the scale that Rome had. So for now America isnt really like Rome in some ways.

Angel
02-22-2006, 11:42 PM
Well we certainly don't crucify people...yet.

AROUETLJ
02-23-2006, 09:12 AM
Comparing the USA to Rome means you're assuming the USA has been around for more than 1000 years, which it hasn't.

Lamer
02-23-2006, 04:31 PM
You cant compare USA to rome. Rome has stood for 1000 year and was around in a totaly diffrent time, america is around for a cuple hundred years and is a superpower for only 60 years and looks like china is taking over soon.

And the text is very FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!1111 orientated (we arent that free- belive me: it just seems so if you take quick look)

TheBelgian
02-23-2006, 04:51 PM
America is not Rome. America is a democracy not a monarchy. The Roman Empire controlled the Mediteranian ONLY. The decline of Rome was due to leadership.

The romans pretty much ruled all of the then known world. And the point's been made that America has only been a superpower for 60 years, which is bleak against rome's centuries of unchallanged rule. Eventually all empires crumble.

ed316
02-23-2006, 04:54 PM
The romans pretty much ruled all of the then known world. And the point's been made that America has only been a superpower for 60 years, which is bleak against rome's centuries of unchallanged rule. Eventually all empires crumble.

The known world according to western views. What about China? and the countries that weren't even anywhere near the Med? So before Rome there were no such things as Chinese or Aztecs?

foxtrot023
02-23-2006, 04:59 PM
America is not Rome. America is a democracy not a monarchy. The Roman Empire controlled the Mediteranian ONLY. The decline of Rome was due to leadership.

Rome started as a republic. The roughly 1000 years of Rome can be divided into Republican Rome from 600 bc to 50bc and Imperial Rome from 50bc to 460 ac (roughly).

The Roman Empire at its peak controlled an empire raging form the North Sea to Africa, It controlled important parts of the balkans, Alps, Germany, England, Belgium, Netherlands, the Black Sea, etc, etc. The Roman mepire was much more than just the Mediterranean.

foxtrot023
02-23-2006, 05:02 PM
The known world according to western views. What about China? and the countries that weren't even anywhere near the Med? So before Rome there were no such things as Chinese or Aztecs?

He meant the known world as known by the ancients, which did know about India, thanks to Alexander The Great. Excluding China and the mentioned India plus the area called the Mesopotamia (or partians), the romans managed to control the majority of civilizations of the age. It was Alexander, however, that managed to conquer the majority of the known world.

BTW the aztecs did not became a culture/empire till about 1000 ac.

ed316
02-23-2006, 05:06 PM
Rome started as a republic. The roughly 1000 years of Rome can be divided into Republican Rome from 600 bc to 50bc and Imperial Rome from 50bc to 460 ac (roughly).

The Roman Empire at its peak controlled an empire raging form the North Sea to Africa, It controlled important parts of the balkans, Alps, Germany, England, Belgium, Netherlands, the Black Sea, etc, etc. The Roman mepire was much more than just the Mediterranean.

The Roman empire was regional the US reach is global. I still beleive you can't compare America to Rome. A 1000 years from now you can compare. To early to tell.

thegman
02-23-2006, 07:07 PM
The Roman empire was regional the US reach is global. I still beleive you can't compare America to Rome. A 1000 years from now you can compare. To early to tell.

I agree you could compare the US to alot of things, but most of those comparisons will be dead wrong in a few or alot of years.

ed316
02-23-2006, 07:15 PM
I agree you could compare the US to alot of things, but most of those comparisons will be dead wrong in a few or alot of years.

Yep. Let America crumble first THEN compare away to their heart's content.

Mastermind
02-23-2006, 10:16 PM
I compare Rome to the USA today by this: When Rome began by the two "Wolf" brothers, it was nothing but a small knot of very tough and determined people. They offered one thing that people around them wanted...security. They had to be tough and cold blooded to make that security happen. As the empire grew (at the expense of it's less well organized and determined neighbors) it gathered the strength to last. But, the real secret to Rome's success was the grit of the people and their constant understanding that they lived in a tough and ruthless world. I think it is very telling that the Roman army was made up of trained professional soldiers who were Romans. They were supported by Roman people who were proud of their national success and not ashamed of their victories. When the time of decline came, the Romans were no longer really "Roman". They had given citizenship to a great many people who were from all over the empire...who really had no stake in the success of Rome and who, in fact, carried thoughts of shame and hesitation about what Rome was doing. Romans were also very wealthy and began to resist the hardships of service to the nation and her armed forces. The army, failing to meet the recruitment requirements, bagan to lower standards and dropped the requirement that Roman soldiers had to be Roman citizens. Anyone could join, regardless of national pride or loyalty. In effect, the people failed to understand the dangers surrounding them. Long periods of peace had given them a false concept of the dangers that were growing ever more prevalent. Wealth and arrogance in Rome provided a motivation for hate and envy from nations and unfortunate, desperate people outside her control. The "FAll" was only a small matter of inevitiability.

In the USA today, we see these exact same symptoms of decline. Open borders and greedy politicians have splintered the American society. Today, it is almost a crime to point to pride in this nation or to brag about her victories. People are more loyal to their multiple skin colors and ancient heritage of heathen tribes than they are to this nation that keeps them free.Soldiers are shunned and insulted in the media without a squeek of protest from the public. The wealthy citizens raise sons and daughters who would never go near a recruitng station and who are educated in liberal social engineering labs that sneer at patriotisim and national defense efforts and paint shame and ridicule on our past victories and successes. And it is those victories and success that made their parents wealthy enough to give them the grand, enlightened education! Our enemies are supported openly without fear from outraged citizens. Our leaders are pressed with absurd political correctness. And the leaders who try to warn citizens of the very real dangers from the surrounding world are laughed at and called "scare mongers" and "racists" and even Nazis. Good men and women asked to serve the nation as judges and Secretaries of Defense and State and Homeland Security are wantonly assaulted in the Senate, until it is becoming difficult to find good people to help run our ever growing bureaucracies. Citizens would much rather go to a rock concert or watch a sit-com on TV than attend a ralley to defend our borders from millions of uneducated illegal emmigrants who have no loyalty to this nation at all. The American military, seeking scairse recruits, enlist women into combat roles and offer free citizenship to foreigners who will serve.

We have come to our zentih, I fear. Our citizens have become weak and confused and easly distracted from the harsh realities of the world. Our children no longer are taught our national anthem and are not asked to pledge their allegiance to the nation...our courts rule without consent and our elected officials lie to us and commit imoral personal acts and never suffer recriminations or shame. Our law enforcemnt organizations can shoot and harass our free citizens practicing their relgions or their rights to privacy without fear of being even reprimanded much less fired (think of Ruby Ridge and Waco). Our rule of law is made a mockery by selfish, arrogant judges and greedy lawyers. And the people allow this without an utter of outrage or protest.

In this regard, we are exactly like Rome in her final days...and we are now threatened by a tough and ruthlessly determined enemy that has vowed to kill every single person on this earth not of Islam...that should give us all a bit of a chill.

TheBelgian
02-24-2006, 05:42 AM
The known world according to western views. What about China? and the countries that weren't even anywhere near the Med? So before Rome there were no such things as Chinese or Aztecs?
Dude of course I mean the world accoridng to mediterranean views, that goes without saying. You cant expect the romans to be psychic and without anyone ever having been there, just know about the exictence of Aztecs, Incas, Native Americans, Chinese, Japanese, or any other people living in regions yet unkown to Rome. That aside, Rome did own most of the world known to them. The global versus regional point is therefore moot. You cant compare a power from 2000 years ago to a ucrrent power which has the advantage of centureis of exploration, sattelites and globalisation in general. In the relative time frame, Rome was a 'global' power.

Captain Cabinet
02-27-2006, 04:11 PM
The Roman empire was regional the US reach is global. I still beleive you can't compare America to Rome. A 1000 years from now you can compare. To early to tell.

What you must realise is that these days everything happens alot faster. Communications, travel, research etc. This means that we don't have to wait a thousand years to tell if America is the new Rome, but I believe it is still a bit too early to make comparrisons

Omaha
02-28-2006, 04:52 PM
The only thing I can REALLY tie together is the acceptance of other people.

Rome, did one thing that not many other nations (at least in the region) did. Learn and grow by conversing with other people and their cultures, and accepting separate peoples from the world around them.

Take things from other peoples, and perfect them ,and vice versa. Like the Chinese, they were a marvelous society when they had their doors open. Once they closed them they fell into ruin.

The "boiling pot" aspect is the only thing I can really see a line to draw. Short of the obvious systems of justice and government and the like.

Mastermind
03-12-2006, 06:17 PM
Rome offered two things...Assimilate and reap the benefits of being Roman or resist and die. America offers almost nothing but great food, movies (in delcine lately) and military power. America gives all this away without out ever asking anything in return. Romans were pretty good business men...always expecting a return on their investments...Americans (as a country) are terrible business men...they expend with seemingly limitless resources and expect practically nothing tangible in return.

Greek soldier
03-12-2006, 06:27 PM
Mastermind, you forgot something: America also offers the opportunity of becoming a millionaire a bit easy ;) See how many made money on Wall Street...

Mastermind
03-13-2006, 10:48 PM
There has to be something said for a nation that is populated by involved citizens. In just about every culture that ever existed, there was a kind of "glue" that held people together to perpetuate that culture and thus preserve the nation. People have got to believe in something greater than them selves. In most cultures, the primary "greater' is the family...after that it is the tribe (neighborhood or village), then the nation...it is a matter of self preservation. Continuing to become greater is a way of fending off outside enemies and perpetuating your gene pool...the future is in the children...that is a common belief among just about every culture. Unfortunately, the "nation" of the United States has begun a devolution into smaller and smaller sets of belief systems with fewer and fewer Americans believing in the singularity of the Nation itself. As a result, the nation has become something like an inflated balloon...it is tightly held at the edges, but hollow inside...it really is losing substance. People ridicule the soldiers who fight to protect them, they call the President names and belittle his efforts, congress men snipe at one another in rude and dishonest way (I know that has always been the case...but it has gotten ridiculous lately), kids learn nothing in schools and the more money we throw at that problem, the less they learn, heritage has come to mean wearing funny hair or stealing cars or becoming a drug addict, patriotism ahs come to mean fascism, loyalty has come to mean manic obsessive, and honesty has come to mean dishonesty...nothing is as it must be in order for a nation to survive. Nations are made up of people working toward a common goal...but, without her people, America will be nothing but a hollow shell...a system of borders with no meaning, citizenship with no benefit, a culture lost in it's own self indulgence.

The reason for culture and education and heritage is so that people can see there is a reason to fight anyone who would endanger those things...whole populations have died simply defending the ground their ancestors were buried in. Today, I see and hear so many Americans making excuses and apologizing for the very enemies who would eradicate this entire nation. Today, I see weaknesses in Americans who have no idea what their own country stands for or even what it took to make it the greatest nation on earth. Today, I see and hear Americans who mouth off on things they have no understanding of and who follow the lead of movie stars and obviously insane preachers like Louis Farrakhan....I see people waiting for rescue when they could easily walk to safety and then screaming they have been discriminated against because every possible comfort was not afforded them in a time of crisis. These people are weaklings...and now, I fear there are so many of them, this nation can hardly survive much longer.

The world is a tough place...it does not suffer fools and idiots and weaklings very long. The earth is greatly over populated with strong, determined, fierce people who struggle like wild cats just to survive one more day...people who willingly walk miles every day just to bring fire wood and water to their families...people who will not hesitate to snatch every possible thing right out of your mouth...more than half a million new ones come crashing through to America every year....and they are coming soon to a neighborhood near you, my fellow Americans.

ogukuo72
03-13-2006, 11:35 PM
I'm constantly amazed by the talk of decline when it comes to the United States. Looking in from the outside, the US has never been stronger. Its still the largest economy in the world, with the most creative and productive work force, with the most numerous Fortune 500 companies that gave the best value on the stock market.

In terms of its military strength, US military power has never been more dominant.

In terms of its culture - for better or for worse - its music, movies, games, etc are still the most influential in the world. Brands like American Idol are known and copied all over the world. Music forms such as hip-hop and gangsta rap (with its curious jerky movements and disjointed sentences) are imitated everywhere, even in the Middle East.

Looking ahead, I can see no society that can compete with the US in any of these areas.

There's much talk about China becoming the next superpower, but that is to ignore many aspects of China, its political system, and its economy at the moment. There's no way in which it can become a superpower without risky internal instability. Its economy might look large on paper, but there are still hundreds of millions of people waiting to be lifted out of the poverty trap. This is a sullen mass that is suffering under corruption, inefficiencies and lack of legal rights. Its work force is not even half as creative and productive as the South Koreans, not to mention the Japanese, much less the Americans.

CPL Trevoga
03-14-2006, 02:36 AM
Rome started as a republic. The roughly 1000 years of Rome can be divided into Republican Rome from 600 bc to 50bc and Imperial Rome from 50bc to 460 ac (roughly).

The Roman Empire at its peak controlled an empire raging form the North Sea to Africa, It controlled important parts of the balkans, Alps, Germany, England, Belgium, Netherlands, the Black Sea, etc, etc. The Roman mepire was much more than just the Mediterranean.

Actually Roman Empire lasted until 1453, the year Constantinople fell to Turks, so it lasted more than 2000 years. Legacy of Rome is still with us.

XxDualityxX
03-14-2006, 02:39 AM
Yes because we want to take over all the land and do what with it.

foxtrot023
03-14-2006, 09:47 AM
Actually Roman Empire lasted until 1453, the year Constantinople fell to Turks, so it lasted more than 2000 years. Legacy of Rome is still with us.

True, but Constantinople was kinda rome-ish. I agree that the folks that left it in 1453 and started the Renassance (sp) gave us an even better insight of greco roman culture.

Lurps
03-14-2006, 10:11 AM
I'm constantly amazed by the talk of decline when it comes to the United States. Looking in from the outside, the US has never been stronger. Its still the largest economy in the world, with the most creative and productive work force, with the most numerous Fortune 500 companies that gave the best value on the stock market.

In terms of its military strength, US military power has never been more dominant.

In terms of its culture - for better or for worse - its music, movies, games, etc are still the most influential in the world. Brands like American Idol are known and copied all over the world. Music forms such as hip-hop and gangsta rap (with its curious jerky movements and disjointed sentences) are imitated everywhere, even in the Middle East.

Looking ahead, I can see no society that can compete with the US in any of these areas.

There's much talk about China becoming the next superpower, but that is to ignore many aspects of China, its political system, and its economy at the moment. There's no way in which it can become a superpower without risky internal instability. Its economy might look large on paper, but there are still hundreds of millions of people waiting to be lifted out of the poverty trap. This is a sullen mass that is suffering under corruption, inefficiencies and lack of legal rights. Its work force is not even half as creative and productive as the South Koreans, not to mention the Japanese, much less the Americans.American Idols aside, it not that rosy.:roll: By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The comptroller general of the United States is explaining over eggs how the nation's finances are going to hell.

"We face a demographic tsunami" that "will never recede," David Walker tells a group of reporters. He runs through a long list of fiscal challenges, led by the imminent retirement of the baby boomers, whose promised Medicare and Social Security benefits will swamp the federal budget in coming decades.

The breakfast conversation remains somber for most of an hour. Then one reporter smiles and asks, "Aren't you depressed in the morning?"

Sadly, it's no laughing matter. To hear Walker, the nation's top auditor, tell it, the United States can be likened to Rome before the fall of the empire. Its financial condition is "worse than advertised," he says. It has a "broken business model." It faces deficits in its budget, its balance of payments, its savings — and its leadership.

Walker's not the only one saying it. As Congress and the White House struggle to trim up to $50 billion from the federal budget over five years — just 3% of the $1.6 trillion in deficits projected for that period — budget experts say the nation soon could face its worst fiscal crisis since at least 1983, when Social Security bordered on bankruptcy.

Without major spending cuts, tax increases or both, the national debt will grow more than $3 trillion through 2010, to $11.2 trillion — nearly $38,000 for every man, woman and child. The interest alone would cost $561 billion in 2010, the same as the Pentagon.

From the political left and right, budget watchdogs are warning of fiscal trouble:

• Douglas Holtz-Eakin, director of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, dispassionately arms 535 members of Congress with his agency's stark projections. Barring action, he admits to being "terrified" about the budget deficit in coming decades. That's when an aging population, health care inflation and advanced medical technology will create a perfect storm of spiraling costs.

• Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, sees a future of unfunded promises, trade imbalances, too few workers and too many retirees. She envisions a stock market dive, lost assets and a lower standard of living.

• Kent Conrad, a Democratic senator from North Dakota, points to the nation's $7.9 trillion debt, rising by about $600 billion a year. That, he notes, is before the baby boom retires. "We're not preparing for what we all know is to come," he says. "We're all sleepwalking through this period."

• Stuart Butler of the conservative Heritage Foundation projects a period from now until 2050 in which tax revenue stays stable as a share of the economy but Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security spending soars. To avoid big tax increases, he says the government has to "renegotiate" the social contracts it made with its citizens.

• Alice Rivlin and Isabel Sawhill of the centrist Brookings Institution put their pessimism into a book titled Restoring Fiscal Sanity. Rivlin, who became the first director of the Congressional Budget Office in 1974, says it will take an "economic scare" such as the 1987 stock market crash to spur action. Sawhill likens the growing gulf between what the government spends and takes in to a "Category 6 fiscal hurricane."

'The Fiscal Wake-Up Tour'

They are the preachers of doom and gloom. Liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, they are trying to be heard above the ka-ching of the cash register as it tallies the cost of government benefits and tax cuts, Iraq and Hurricane Katrina. To raise their profile in recent months, several have traveled together to places such as Richmond, Va., and Minneapolis for what they call a "Fiscal Wake-Up Tour."

Leon Panetta, former White House budget director and chief of staff to President Clinton, calls them "disciples of balanced budgets. ... And at some point, they'll be proven right."

The White House and Congress are trying to address the nation's short-term budget deficits, but their response pales against the size of the long-term problem. President Bush proposed nearly $90 billion in savings over five years in his 2006 budget. He also tried to trim future Social Security benefits for wealthier recipients. The Senate this month approved $35 billion in savings over five years. House Republicans tried to save more than $50 billion last week, but objections from moderates stalled action. Either way, the savings could be wiped out by $70 billion in proposed tax cuts.

The budget-cutting effort is being led by conservatives, who recoiled when Congress quickly voted to spend $62 billion after Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. "Katrina served as a wake-up call," Walker says.

In prior years, facing a less imminent demographic explosion, Congress cut in politically agonizing increments of $500 billion over five years. Bush's father gave up his "no new taxes" campaign pledge in 1990. After Ross Perot focused attention on the deficit in his 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton and the Democratic-run Congress raised taxes even more in 1993. Clinton and the Republican-run Congress forced two government shutdowns before agreeing on a deficit-reduction package in 1997.

In each case, cutting the deficit backfired at the polls. The elder Bush lost re-election, the Democrats lost Congress, and Republicans' obstinacy helped Clinton win a second term. "The choices you have to make are almost exactly the opposite of what wins political elections," Panetta says.

The problem is also easy for Congress to postpone because the day of reckoning is years away. This year's deficit was $319 billion, down $94 billion from the year before. That's 2.6% of the nation's economy, an amount easily borrowed from foreign investors.

From 'Grenada' to 'Vietnam'

But there is every reason to act — and soon. Budget watchdogs cite these looming problems:

• Prescription-drug coverage under Medicare takes effect Jan. 1. Its projected cost, advertised at $400 billion over 10 years when it passed in 2003, has risen to at least $720 billion. "We couldn't afford" it, Walker says of the new law.

• The leading edge of the baby boom hits age 62 in 2008 and can take early retirement. The number of people covered by Social Security is expected to grow from 47 million today to 69 million in 2020. By 2030, the Congressional Budget Office projects, Social Security spending as a share of the U.S. economy will rise by 40%.

• The bulk of Bush's 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax-cut program is set to expire at the end of 2010. But Congress is moving to make the reductions permanent. That would keep tax revenue at roughly 18% of the economy, where it's been for the past half-century — too low to support even current spending levels. "We can't afford to make all the tax cuts permanent," Walker says.

• Baby boomers begin to reach age 65 in 2011 and go on Medicare. Of all the nation's fiscal problems, this is by far the biggest. If it grows 1% faster than the economy — a conservative estimate — Medicare would cost $2.6 trillion in 2050, after adjusting for inflation. That's the size of the entire federal budget today.

"Social Security is Grenada," Holtz-Eakin says. "Medicare is Vietnam."

Inaction could have these consequences, experts say: Higher interest rates. Lower wages. Shrinking pensions. Slower economic growth. A lesser standard of living. Higher taxes in the future for today's younger generation. Less savings. More consumption. Plunging stock and bond prices. Recession.

Some veterans of the deficit-cutting wars are pessimistic about avoiding disaster. "In the end, CBO and others are no more than speed bumps on the highway of fiscal irresponsibility," says Robert Reischauer, former Congressional Budget Office director and now president of the non-partisan Urban Institute.

'Where's Ross Perot?'

The gloom-and-doom crowd hopes to avoid that fate. Increasingly in recent months, they are traveling the country, writing and speaking out about the need to cut spending, raise taxes — or both.

The most outspoken is Walker, an impeccably dressed CPA whose 15-year term as head of the Government Accountability Office runs through 2013. He was a conservative Democrat, then a moderate Republican, and is now an independent. He's also a student of history, a Son of the American Revolution who lives on Virginia property once owned by George Washington.

Walker's agency churns out reports with titles such as "Human Capital: Selected Agencies Have Opportunities to Enhance Existing Succession Planning and Management Efforts." But he knows he must try to humanize the numbers, and his rhetoric on the nation's fiscal course has become more acerbic. "Anybody who says you're going to grow your way out of this problem," Walker says, "would probably not pass math."

Holtz-Eakin, a soft-spoken economist who said Monday he will leave CBO at the end of the year, takes a different approach. Less prone to giving speeches, he sees his role as a consultant and truth-sayer to Congress. "Numbers are the currency of the realm in Washington," he says, and most agree his agency has the best in town. But he concedes, "Sometimes it falls to the consultant to tell the client the bad news."

Holtz-Eakin's father was in steel, a cyclical business rocked by strikes and shutdowns. "I thought, 'This is nuts. No one should live like this,' " he says. That explains why he wants the government to prepare for new demands on its New Deal and Great Society benefit programs. "The baby boom has been getting older one year at a time with a striking regularity," he says.

MacGuineas is the outside agitator. An independent, she worked for Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign in 2000. She respects politicians who deliver bad news, as presidential candidate Walter Mondale did in 1984 when he said tax increases were inevitable — and then was defeated in 49 states.

"I want to see a presidential election where the candidates are talking about what taxes they'll raise and what spending they'll cut," she says. "It's not always a winning campaign slogan."

Conrad ran for the Senate in 1986 promising to reduce the budget deficit or quit after six years. By 1992, the deficit had hit an all-time high, and he said he would not seek re-election. Only the death of North Dakota's other senator kept him in Congress.

The former state tax commissioner has been doing this longer than other congressional budget officials — and he has the most charts. He's so numbers-oriented that at baseball games, he can instantly compute a hitter's average after each at-bat. "Numbers speak to me in a way that they don't speak to others," he says. "I guess it's the way my brain is wired."

Sawhill and Butler, from opposite ends of the political spectrum, lead a group of about 15 budget experts at Washington think tanks who gather periodically to discuss their dour crusade. Aided by Walker and the non-partisan Concord Coalition, a fiscal watchdog group, they have taken their show on the road.

Butler, a native of Britain, witnessed there in the 1960s and '70s the effects of slow growth and high unemployment, driven partly by generous government benefits. "We have a responsibility" to start the debate, he says, "because we don't have to get re-elected." But Sawhill says it's "an indictment of our political leadership that it is being left to outside groups such as ours to put these issues on the agenda."

After three decades in the business, Rivlin is frustrated by lawmakers' inaction and blames balanced-budget advocates for not better articulating the problem. "There may be better ways to talk about it," she says. "I sometimes think, 'Where's Ross Perot when we need him?' "http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-14-fiscal-hurricane-cover_x.htm

Mastermind
03-14-2006, 01:05 PM
See what I mean....it is simply, by all practical and logcial accounting, unsustainable. The inevitable collapse is practically mathmatically predictable.

Mastermind
03-14-2006, 01:55 PM
Over taxed and over fed.

ogukuo72
03-14-2006, 09:10 PM
Ahhhhh. USAToday. That reputable publication that is amazingly accurate on all matters, especially when it comes to politics, global warming, and other grand mysteries of the universe.

"Social Security is Grenada," Holtz-Eakin says. "Medicare is Vietnam."

This sentence alone should have warned Lurps that he is quoting from a leftist alarmist hysterical piece. He really should be more discerning about the kind of papers he reads.

Lurps
03-15-2006, 12:48 AM
Ahhhhh. USAToday. That reputable publication that is amazingly accurate on all matters, especially when it comes to politics, global warming, and other grand mysteries of the universe.



This sentence alone should have warned Lurps that he is quoting from a leftist alarmist hysterical piece. He really should be more discerning about the kind of papers he reads.
[/b]Guess il have to find sources from the right, shouldnt be hard.

EsoognomEhT
03-21-2006, 01:38 PM
America is more like Carthage than Rome.

Whoami88
03-21-2006, 01:50 PM
America is more like Carthage than Rome.

Why do you say that?

Mastermind
03-21-2006, 02:10 PM
If America is Carthage...then who is Rome? Hmmmm?

ogukuo72
03-21-2006, 08:42 PM
If America is Carthage...then who is Rome? Hmmmm?

And for that matter, who's Egypt or Parthia? :) No wait, America is Atlantis! And we all know how that decadent society based upon advanced technology eventually sank into the sea!rofl

Guess il have to find sources from the right, shouldnt be hard.

No, you should be thinking for yourself, and see which article is crap, and which has genuine arguments and worthy points to consider. Articles like these, whether from right or left are useless in forming an informed opinion.

Mastermind
03-22-2006, 06:20 PM
Can Nevada get to be Tahiti?..I hear the women there are lovely.

ogukuo72
03-22-2006, 09:18 PM
Can Nevada get to be Tahiti?..I hear the women there are lovely.

Hummph. I'm always skeptical about those travel advertisement. Polynesian women are very beautiful when they are young, but many of them seemed overweight nowadays!

Mastermind
03-22-2006, 09:34 PM
That's okay...I'm over weight now days, too...should fit right in.

Omaha
03-22-2006, 10:25 PM
America is more like Carthage than Rome.


What? Utter nonsense.

That's a Jersy v New York complex right herr [sic].

CPL Trevoga
03-24-2006, 06:25 PM
You guys've been playing Rome TW too much. Parthia - he he.

Rome is Western Civilization.

EsoognomEhT
03-24-2006, 06:41 PM
What? Utter nonsense.

That's a Jersy v New York complex right herr [sic].

Should have made myself clearer; - The American approach in Afghanistan; hiring and paying tiribal leaders on a freelance basis, one operation at a time.
Carthage used to use the Gaulois mercs and baleric types for its 'dirty work'

Limeyfellow
03-25-2006, 01:41 AM
American Idol is simply a copy of the British tv show, Pop Idols. So its a British invention that has taken over the world and as such I feel the need to apologise for this crime against humanity.