Swoopy, you appear to suffer from the 'Alice' complex by not addressing the question which is being asked. freealways
No time answering your question. (but i believe madison asked you a very good one, so why don't you go answer his). Every action is triggered by a motive. The motive in Lieberman's case is clear, therefore biased. Your motive for asking me this question is clear too, I will not argue with you. Your opinion is as good as mine. Only facts can be argued and that would take CDROM's worth of information for a result that wouldn't be all that interesting insofar as humans interpret facts with their own filters of values. So basically, no one is wrong, no one is right. How 'bout we leave it at that.
http://www.reformation.org/fourthempire.html I thought that was pretty interesting, because as traders we believe history repeats itself. Why not take a look at that and tell me what you think objectively. Obviously some people will complain and be as subjective as possible, it's ok, that's what the ignore button is here for. I do not hold the key to the truth, i believe no one does, stay balanced and believe of only what you see.
Okay, let's be objective when comparing the Roman Empire to the US: 1) The Romans conquered vast tracts of the earth, and those areas they conquered were absorbed into the empire and the empire's borders thus expanded to include those conquered territories. The US has gone to war on the international stage several times. Did those areas it successfully fought in - half of Europe, Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Panama, Grenada, etc. become 51st and subsequent states? NO. 2) The Roman military, as your link pointed out, ran most facets of the Roman way of life, including choosing the Emperor. Does the US military control all facets of American life? Does it choose the President? NO. Our representatives, including our President, are elected by and for the people. 3) The link says war was Imperial Rome's business and passion. Rome was more or less constantly in a state of war, either expanding its territory or trying to defend it's conquered territory. Can the same be said of the US? NO, because of # 1 above. Swoop, did you actually read the contents of that article? I would like to get your "objective" opinion about statements like this: How interesting. The US of A, everybody, is a brutal military dictatorship. Note the tanks and jeeps on the corner of your street at this very moment. Note the squads of armed troops that stop you wherever you go and ask for ID. Note the soldiers carrying away your friends and neighbors for interrogation. Note the colonels and majors and captains in uniform lecturing in the majority of our universities. Spielberg is really a Major General, ya know...Gee, my neighborhood must be the last area in this country free of any brutal soldiers. And what was this "alien force" that hijacked the US government? Um, I see, it's the Pope who's running our government is it? Sheesh, would you folks make up your mind: is it the oil cabal or the Vatican?!? You conspiracists need to have some sort of grand conference to get your story straight. It's getting confusing to Joe American Public.... And wow, after 9/11 we surrounded Russia with military bases? When did that happen? Where are those bases? Are they the kind you just have Scottie teleport hither and thither? And my gosh, my golly, oh gee, I never knew the following: Damn them confederates! It's all making sense now, yessiree. How about this historical nugget about FDR: Who would have thought?!? Clarity, people, clarity! It's like a ray of sunlight piercing a veil of clouds. Enlightenment continues with the following: Okay, so either our "brave politicians" are afraid of drag queens or Vatican assassins. You decide. I just adore this sweeping statement: How dare MacArthur WANT to nuke China? And hey, the US was "ABOUT TO" nuke the Vietnamese! And shame on us that the Soviet Union "WAS THREATENED" with nukes! We are guilty, each and every one of us. I mean hey, "THINK the crime, do the time!" Hail Swoop! Bringer of the Truth, Grand Poobah of Enlightenment, Trader/Philosopher extraordinare! Thank you, thank you, thank you!
lol, that was the point! Don't believe everything you read, there are forces at work everywhere. I'm just a little concerned about this severely split decision between China, Russia, Belgium, Germany and France and the USA etc... France is just bearing responsibility because it is the one with the veto power (although Russia has it too). Roman Empire / USA ? Anyone ? lol
Snoop, you may note that the US has some 34 other nations supporting it so they aren't quite on their own in the way they see things. As noted elsewhere, the three main opposers all have an agenda all of their own which explains their particular motivation. freealways
freealways, the three MAIN opposers as you call them are very much important, if they weren't we wouldn't be having this conversation. France/Germany/Russia/China are irritating the US, but you can't just disregard their opinions. Their motivations are maybe honorable, how do you know ? France and Germany might have interests (doubtful) but Russia and China may have other interests, you can't just lump them up in the same bag. If India didn't want to bomb Iraq, I think we (western world) would have bombed Iraq a long time ago, regardless. Come on, France and Germany are not lightweight, and that's what is irritating the US 'cause they can't get the consensus. Eventually everybody will come to one same conclusion, but doesn't seem like it will happen tomorrow.
They are important solely because our government is trying to be diplomatic about this whole affair. After we've taken care of Iraq, I think there will be a total reevaluation by us about who our "allies" really are. I doubt very much that we will be as diplomatic if there is another attack equal in scale to 9/11.