C'mon! "Just for smokes"? So you're saying that the people didn't chose those leaders? No matter how you slice it up, the president is still elected by the people. Really? A rubber stamp congress? Did the Republican Congress that was in power along with the Democratic Clinton act as a rubber stamp? The Democratic Congress for a Republican Reagan? (Reagan vetoed more bills than any other president than Roosavelt, I believe) Hell, the Republican Congress under Republican President Bush, Jr. has hardly passed his ideal agenda. You've gotta do better than an arguement grenade. Back that up. ~String
From a VERY limited choice.In the last 2 elections one reason why the elections were so close because there were so little difference between the candidates. I read a book on the 1929 Crash. It mentioned the 1928 election, saying that it went on pure likability because there was no difference in the politics of the 2 candidates. OK, there are SLIGHT differences. Had they ever disagreed on serious matters? Let's make a bet. If the Dems win the next election, whoever is the president he/she won't withdraw from Iraq....
I explained it in the Logical Republican thread. It as something to do with a black liquid that is flamable... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
There are some close calls such as Rome, the Mongolian empire, the USA, and the British empire; but when it comes down to it, an empire is only as strong as it's leaders.
I think the fundamental characteristic of an empire has nothing to do with how it is governed (No Emporia required). Any nation that extracts significant tribute from others is an empire. "Tribute" is goods, services and or currency. "Extracts" means obtains by domination and without trading (exchanging good or services) for these imports. In history most empires have needed to send soldiers to the lands they extracted wealth from. This was not as efficient as the US export of green pieces of paper. In the case of the British Empire 300 years ago, the cost of the soldiers stationed in what was to become the USA actually exceeded the value of the goods and services extracted. It can be argued that Rome fell for the same reason. I.e. cost of the Roman legions eventually exceeded what they were collecting in taxes in foreign lands. The US Empire will fall soon when the foreign lands will no longer supply goods and services for green paper and promises to pay later (Treasury bonds and notes). There may be some effort to revert to the older, less efficient means of extraction, especially of oil. I.e. send in the soldiers and take oil by force, but that will fail as oil production is too easy to disrupt by "hit and run" techniques, especially the oil pipe lines.
British empire was great but not one of the best. You say they conquered a lot of land and that is true but that is due to technology. If America,China or Russia in the future takes large chunks of land from mars does that mean they are the greatest? British was not the greatest because they had many rivals who were on par with them during their times of greatness such as the French, Spanish, Portugese, Russians and others. Your only truly great when you are leagues infront of the rest of the world.
America during the Cold War. Granted, it wasn't an empire, but it was the most powerful nation in the history of the world. Second and third would be Roman and British Empires.
Why did you not call America, very efficiently making much of the world send it tribute (i.e. goods and services for essentially nothing but promisses and green pieces of paper) an "empire" and yet do call the British, doing the same less efficiently (required stationing troops every where they extracted tribute from) an empire? America has always lead in being efficient organizers.* They made the largest and most efficient Emipre ever - give credit where it is due. (I define an Empire as any government that extracts tribute from many others and or their people directly so its own citizen live better, with less taxes to pay, and enjoy special status internationally in law. I.e. not subject to international court at the Hague, its occupying soldiers and private contractors are not subject to local laws, UN rules, Koyota treaty rules, International Atoimic Energy Commission inspections, etc. etc. - just as the "Citizens of Rome" were exempt from the local laws and international rules that governed almost all others.) ------------- *Reflected even in the main national sports - more organized "Team Efforts", not "star players" scoring the points. PS: Ron Paul (Nov07) noted: "Empires end with the collapse of their currency." He is right on this, at least this time.
We have trading partners, not colonies. They sell us stuff, we sell them stuff. And yes, our soldiers are subject to local law wherever they are stationed. We do support nuclear nonproliferation, and (what is the Koyota Treaty?) Also, you are wrong about sports teams not having star players. Look at the LA Lakers: Kobe Bryant is the team, basically. Baseball: Derek Jeter, Albert Pujols, Vladimir Guerrero, Ichiro Suzuki, Randy Johnson... Football: Vince Young, Ben Roethlisberger, Tom Brady, Reggie Bush... Sports is full of stars.
Not true. For example, even in Italy US soldier is shielded by US government. Recal a few years ago when US pilot, flying much lower than law allowed, cut a cable car wire and killed many? The outraged Italians wanted to try him for at least man-slaughter, but could not. In place like Iraq, even a soldier who admits raping and killing girl's whole family can not be tried by Iraqi courts. - Only US military and as far as I know, all they every get is a dishonarable discharge and a few years in some nice jail until most people have forgotten. Do you not at least recall the slaugheter of about a dozen (number is still in dispute) unarmed Iraqis civilains, including women and children, by PRIVATE blackwater employees? They too were exempt from local justice. GWB reviewed the policy later and confirmed it would not be changed, but Blackwater did lose some contracts for a few months (Back now in full force now. Blackwater's owner is a big contributor to GWB's campaigns). The immunity extends to US employees as well as the US soldiers.
British Empire only third? You're saying that a modernish USA is the most powerful nation the world has ever known (due to technology) and thus placing them first, but placing the Romans in front of the British Empire who were vastly more powerful (by way of technology, your rules) and whose empire covered far, far more land? Consistency maybe?
Hmm. It was a while since I posted that, but I don't think I meant that second and third were the Roman and British empires respectively. Just that they were the other two, and not necessarily in that order. Besides, its not just technology that makes America so great/powerful. We dominate the global economy, our culture permeates the whole world, and our language is the most spoken. We are extremely important politically as well.
