Why the US won't "fall."

SkiSundownJibber

SkiSundownJibber

Active member
I started my own thread on this because that other one was too long and too packed full of retarded comments. I had this thought back in 8th grade when I was still experimenting with the validity of concepts like social darwinism, self-interest as the fundamental motive of human beings, and a bunch of other pedantic ideas that really don't matter. What I eventually concluded is this: the United States won't paralell the historical power gains and losses of the Roman empire because, among many things, the Roman empire was constantly trying to expand its borders by sending detachments of its army into neighboring areas. The army was spread too thin and a bunch of barbarians took out rome. The United States admittedly pursues an interventionist policy, but does not proactively engage in war (anymore) for the purpose of gaining territory.

Furthermore, Rome became a benevolent dictatorship under Julius Caeser, but his successors didn't stay true to the benevolent aspect of things. Like every other despotic government in history, Rome floundered and dissipated. and whatnot.

 
Hint: Dont use big words to sound smart cause your not.

US wont be THE world power much longer.

_________________

Personaly I believe my short term memory has been affected but that is the main side effect and I also think maybe my short term memory has been affected.

Pimpin since Pimpin be Pimpin been Pimpin - Dedicated to Mr Caylor.

 
yeah, except n e day Bush could go ell dictator on u. Caesar never said if he was to be head honco he would be a dictator. besides nowadays he would get sniped out if he tried some b.s like that

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A view on the downfall of the US by 221:

'godzilla man. he's gonna show up and shit will hit the fan.'

ellermann -> i hope you realize you just threw yourselves a birthday party online. just think about that for a little while

Ryan V.G
 
think about what you just said dumbass!

and Linejibber, I usually support you, but like I didn't even bother reading your point because it's very clear that you haven't really thought about this much or you have and you just haven't gathered enough info on it (I'm not saying you haven't researched or that you read bad stuff, just that in order to say something like that you damn well better be able to back it up...

On my way to goddom
 
what u mean dont use big words ur not smart? the kids is smart as hell. the big words, um, ya i didnt really understand. but i get the point and i totally agree with that. I dont think the US will fall until something totally dramatic happened. But the kids is obviously pretty smart.

-----------------------

123.... the crew is called HCC

SMITH, OBERMEYER (keeping it real)
 
i dont know 50-50 for me bush is a dickhead prez tho

-------------------------

i love the smell of napalm in the morning

snow smells good to
 
skisundownjibber,

1.Rome didnt fall because it was spread to thin. Had you actually taken a history course, or read into this, rome pulled back all of its forces in britain and africa before it fell. It fell because the structure politique had become to corrupt, in other words, rome collapsed upon itself from the inside. Had there been the strength of past roman leaders, the huns would have been put down easily, no bargaining. thus proving your example incorrect.

2nd, as i said before. The United States was built by men, therefore has the weakness of man. In other words, whatever is built by man has a begginning and an end. To say that the US will be there forever is like saying there is a perfect human being.

3rd-just because you look into a thesaraus doesnt make you smart

4th-With its foreign policy and having almost the entire world against it, why the fuck shouldnt it fall? Its only a matter of time before the pressure from outside starts impeding the US

5th- Rome has lasted hundreds and hundreds of years. The only reason why it did so, was for 3 main reasons:1Constant changes in government, from kings, to senate, to senate with caesars, then just caesars. 2. Lack of mobility, and technology-it used to take armies months to march accross a small nation, now it takes hours, not to mention all tactics are totally different now.

3. Its size with respect to the surrounding area. Rome was larger than any other nation or group that tried to conquer it, the US is not.

'We can dance if we want to, we can leave your friends behind, cause they dont dance, and if they dont dance they aint no friends of mine.'

Me- come here doggy

Karl-I dont think he understands english man

Alex-yeah, it is a GERMAN shepherd
 
Thanks Petek, you nailed everything and more that i was going to say so...

^^Ya, wut he said^^

==============================

^Rowen^

Grinding planetary rings would be incredibly difficult, not the least for which because there is no surface per se to slide on, and the collisions of the pieces of asteroid, dust and ice in the ring would make an environment that would not be pleasant. Your blood would first boil in the vacuum of space, leaving you so incapacitated that you could not maintain sufficient balance if there was a surface to grind, and then the temperature would freeze your skin, shatter your eardrums and sever your optical nerves because your watery eyeballs would freeze and then shatter. In the next split second, hundreds of particles of dust, ice and rock smaller than the size of this comma ',' would rip through your ski coat and body, instantly killing you. Your body would then still float about getting cut to shreds by the fragments until it is crushed between two colliding pieces of debris, eg two asteroids within the ring, which would grind your frozen body and regrettably snap your boards, boots and bindings, into dust to float around and become part of the massive debris fields that are the rings of Jupiter.
 
haha, sorry, thought it was linejibber but yeah Rome definetely didn't fallbecause somebody came and conquered them...

Have you ever thought about what the world would be like if Attilla hadn't had the heart attack? He would have conquered literally the entire world without a problem, the only thing in his way was Rome and unfurtunetely they held him off long enough for him to die...

On my way to goddom
 
i agree with petek. also the east isnt that bad linejibber hasnt posted here or is that just your signature so that you dont have to right it very time he posts?

 
petek:

let's start with point #2... I agree. Nothing is permanent. The point of this thread was to show that there are very few historical paralells between rome and the US, and that, as a result, we can't use the fall of Rome as a precedent for the impending end of the US. The other reasons you offered for the fall of Rome don't reflect the situations that the US has faced, and therefore bolster my main point, which is that Rome and the US have few similiarities when discussing the fall of nations.

point number 3- I don't own a thesaurus... nor did I use any big words.

point number 4- The entire world isn't against the United States. Pressure from the outside world is almost nonexistent. We are big enough, rich enough, and powerful enough to put pressure on other countries. Just because we aren't waging war in every country in the world doesn't mean we aren't impeding their progress. Subsidisation of US farmers, for example, inevitably hampers the progress of farmers in developing agricultural nations, and thus the nations themselves. Economic sanctions have kept countries like Cuba in poverty and under control since the 80s. When the US does feel threatened, like the current situation with Iraq, it posesses the military might to subdue the opposition. I can almost guarantee that, without a nuclear holocaust or extreme natural disaster, the United States will be alive and kicking by the time I die.

 
Why the fuck would you ever compare the US to ancient rome? For one thing, we live in a 'global village' now. It totally changes economics, warfare and basically every facet of a country.

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Rome did NOT fall because of military issues. True, barbarians did add to their problem, but it was not which caused their downfall. There were two primary facets, as PeteK said, the first was the convaluded political system. The second being their over dependancy on slave labour. THere were also an assortment of other factors which added to the problems. These included lead piping (many died of lead poisoning), Barbarian attacks, uprising in provinces, etc.

I really don't see the least bit of validity in your argument. We live in a day in age where Economics play a larger role in the downfall of a country rather than a bunch of barbarians raping your women and stealing your silver. If a counries such as China or Mexio were to deny their cheap labour, The corporate US might not be able to compete on a global scale in many sectors which they dominate. Compound this with lets say... an oil blockade from OPEC and the american Economy would be in serious shit.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

-Dan

DyNoMiTe!
 
the US is not going to fall...this nation can not be taken over by a dictator...its just not possible...just because we dont have a perfect president doesnt mean that we are all gunna die or 'fall' as u say we will

original member of CWDM

official CWDM rep

official kuddha rep

- ROOTS
 
and yes the US will be the super power for a long time...theres nothing that can change that unless americans go ape shit on there own country which will not happen

original member of CWDM

official CWDM rep

official kuddha rep

- ROOTS
 
Maximushi... I hope you understand that I made this thread to rebut the creator of the other 'fall of the US thread' who compared the US to Rome and questioned whether or not the US is going to share a similiar fate. I also hope you understand that you said that Barbarians didn't cause the downfall of Rome, but then contradictorily cited them at the end of your little paragraph as a reason.

And any historian or book will tell you that Rome was ended militarily. The one thing that all of the various governing bodies had in common was an army. Come on... it's not like the emperor could've had control over someone several hundred miles away without a military. Brute force perpetuated the expansion of rome, and also ended it. It didn't 'implode.' there was no organized uprising. the end of rome became imminent the day it was sacked in the early 400s by the visigoths.

 
petek just made alot of great points.

Fall is inevitable. What comes up must come down.

While Rome does not share alot of direct ties with the US, there is much we can learn from it.

I've said before, history repeats itself.

If a nation as powerful as Rome came to an end, what makes us any different? For all we know, it could be hundreds of years away. Instead of worrying about it, change what you can, and accept what you can't - and go on with life.

Eat. Sleep. Breathe. Ski.

 
also, countries like china won't be able or willing to deny outsourced US companies cheap labor in the forseeable future. Some jobs, no matter what the conditions and wages are, are better than no jobs.

 
skisundownjibber, the uS now has a very large enemy, the islam religion, 1 billion strong. At first jihad meant holy war against christians and jews, now al jazeera says it is almost entirely against americans. The US government lives in fear of another terrorist attack, not because they are scared of lives lost, but money lost. 9/11 cost americans a LOT of money, and there economy suffered majorly in part of that. Cripple the economy, cripple the riches, cripple the military. If the economy is very fragile, but it can also be healed with equal speed, so now the thing to worry about is simply the largest attack on free trade, and all developing and third world countries are almost definately goint to be a part of it. the us depends heavily on free trade.

'We can dance if we want to, we can leave your friends behind, cause they dont dance, and if they dont dance they aint no friends of mine.'

Me- come here doggy

Karl-I dont think he understands english man

Alex-yeah, it is a GERMAN shepherd
 
Actually I am pretty sure that the president can become a dictator at will, but the whole martial law thing wouldn't work and just because bush is a fucking dumbass doesn't mean that he isn't capable of fucking over our country...

FEMA, people, FEMA... and it doesn't really have to do with bush, just past presidents...

On my way to goddom
 
the patriot act brings us one step closer to marshal law.

'We can dance if we want to, we can leave your friends behind, cause they dont dance, and if they dont dance they aint no friends of mine.'

Me- come here doggy

Karl-I dont think he understands english man

Alex-yeah, it is a GERMAN shepherd
 
that too, but last time I said something about the patriot act everybody was like, 'But if you don't vote for it you're not a patriot and you obviously oppose it so you oppose patriotism!'

On my way to goddom
 
SkiSundownJibber.

I realise what I said and I stand by it. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I thought. The barbarian attacks were not the PRIMARY reason for rome's decline/fall, merely another factor which compounded the economic & political issues which were destroying the empire. I suggest you do a bit of reading on the issue if you plan on making any more claims. You clearly are not educated in the topic. Historians have been arguing over this topic for 100's of years, and its apparent that there is no primary cause although certain historians tend to favor one.

I did not realise the Rome/US analogy was from another thread. Even so, it is fucking retarded. Why do you continue to use it when its clear its flawed.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

-Dan

DyNoMiTe!
 
and because the US government is living in fear of a terrorist attack, it is proactively locating and destroying suspected terrorists, terrorist communications methods, and terrorist funds. Stop the money, stop the people. Perhaps the irregular lack of terrorist attacks on the United States since 9/11/01 is a result of increased security, or perhaps it is because the foreign terrorists only have the means to attack locally now. The local sleeper cell terrorists usually operate when commanded to, so perhaps they haven't been able to receive a 'go' from the terrorist 'headquarters.' The point of all this? It just goes to show that, militarily, the United States can and will defend itself, preemptively or retaliatorily, against any threat by which it is opposed.

On a side note, not all 1 billion muslims hate the US.

 
I'm rebutting the rome/US connection. your lack of understanding is probably confusing some of the other people that are reading this thread. please stop.

 
haha Bush becoming a dictator? if you seriously think that you are retarded..there are way too many checks and balances in our government, plus people would realize it and stop it from happening.

------------------------------------------------

-Dave O'Neill

Representing the famed terrain of Ohio and New York
 
I just read China comment. I don't think you should be making such bold statements with no knowledge in that field. Globalization is good for everyone except the poor workers of countries. If the workers of these countries were sick of being oppressed and were rallied (for whatever reason) things would change.

Nothing is static in any facet of life, change is the one thing you cannot avoid.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

-Dan

DyNoMiTe!
 
I think first of all you all must clarify what you mean by the 'Fall of the U.S.' If you mean that the united states as a country will disolve, then I believe that it will still be a very long time before anything so dramatic happens unless some unforseen catastrophe causes it to collapse. However The 'fall of the U.S. as a super power' is a much more likely scenario. As stated above by Maximushi we live in a global community and the power of countries is now more linked to their economic power as opposed to their military power(not to say that military power isn't an issue but you need a strong economy to pay for an army as large as the americans). We see how fragile the american economy is, it is now out of a recession but it is easy to see how if america was repeatidly in deficeit and had it's military continuly overdeployed oversees how it could eventually fall from the position of super power.

-------------

They call me the centaur, I'm a man but I'm built like a horse from the waist down.

The Official NS Pirate with Matt Harvey's seal of approval

 
your comparing the united states to ancient rome - enough said right here retard. its a little bit of a different world.

_________________

Personaly I believe my short term memory has been affected but that is the main side effect and I also think maybe my short term memory has been affected.

Pimpin since Pimpin be Pimpin been Pimpin - Dedicated to Mr Caylor.

 
Yes- your lack of understanding. I'll say it one last time: I'm not the one saying that rome/US are similar. I'm the one saying that no, they're not.

As for this crap about China:

#1) don't assume I don't have any 'knowledge in that field.' I didn't say anything about globalization, I said something about outsourced companies which could, admittedly, be considered part of globalization. And yes, when Nike goes into an overpopulated country with an unemployment rate of 20+%(I don't know exact figure) like China and offers 10000 jobs, it is definately helping the workers. Chinese corporations don't have the capacity to employ the 96% of China's population that would make for an ideally-sized workforce. Which is why the workers in those countries don't rally for change. Last week, in fact, a chinese labor official applauded 'US efforts to establish jobs in third world countries.'

 
''end of rome became imminent the day it was sacked in the early 400s by the visigoths.''

-SkiSundownJibber

Do you even realise that rome was in decline for about 280 years before the visigoths even began to attack the roman empire? I find it absolutely hilarious that you think I'm the one who is uninformed. The first crisis of room was in... 193-194. Why didn't you bring up the goths who attacked much earlier? If you were purely looking at things from a military/invasion standpoint, they would have showed the beginning the fall, not the visigoths. Don't fucking tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

-Dan

DyNoMiTe!
 
see? you've confused lord_piot. He is now under the impression that I'm saying the exact opposite of what I really am. This could be because he only read your posts, or because he has the same perspicacity for reading as a quahog.

To define fall of the US: it was implied in the other thread that fall of the US means dissipation of the US in the same way that Rome ceased to exist.

 
i think the only way we can compare the us to rome, aside from the fact that we do try to 'conquer' everyone else, is that rome had a problem with taxation as well i believe which helped it fall. on the conquering, we just said iraq, fuck off, were getting rid of sadaam. ok, we did that, were quelling terrorism... sure, but now were supposed to be setting up a new government for them... one that fits our model, essentially taking over in a more modern sense, since its a little tougher these days to take out your trusty legions and catapults and take over. the only probelm with that is bush didnt think far enough ahead to get a government set up after the 'war' so yeah, theyre fucked for a bit. another thing is, no its not likely thhere will be any great change for us within our life times, but by the time we die, we definitely will not be in the same position of power we are now. one other thing you have to wonder is how effective government can continue to be with the new electronic and commercial power around. im not good at posting stuff that makes sense... i go retarded in forums... but anyway, read something by buckminster fuller, he was pretty visionary, id say an overlooked genius of our time... or something like that.

___________________

Silly Rabbits. Pink is for cheese! –stevexs2

you bettter still have my jagermeister shirt, or I'll fucking drive a train through your anus. – jibtech

numbers are for jewish investment bankers - sleezemcfly

Somedays I like it crunchy, other days I take it up the ass! - Lanemeyers

Sam Caylor - Famed Fatass, Post Whore, And All Around Slut Bag
 
yep- and rome continued to decline for another half century after that. But you can't tell me the visigoths weren't a/the major catalyst.

 
''also, countries like china won't be able or willing to deny outsourced US companies cheap labor in the forseeable future. Some jobs, no matter what the conditions and wages are, are better than no jobs.''

'I didn't say anything about globization''

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

YES YOU DID. It's now REALLY apparent you have no idea what you are talking about. Do you even realize what globalization is? Seriously, do you?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

-Dan

DyNoMiTe!
 
it's an ambiguous term that is best explained by saying that the world is becoming smaller as technology increases. And yes, I have more than a good idea as to the topics on which I'm speaking. So stop with the personal attacks... right now, you're a nuisance. Maybe if you wrote something substantial, I'd take you seriously.

 
And I think that the several people reading this thread are smart enough to know that you're not accomplishing much by proclaiming my ignorance.

 
Just stop. Please. If you think claiming that globization is ambigious can save the fact that you clearly contradicted yourself, just stop.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

-Dan

DyNoMiTe!
 
and, lest you say something stupid about my definition of globalization, I'll add that globalization is specifically geared towards a sort of omni-inclusive, international trade setup.

 
''I'll add that globalization is specifically geared towards a sort of omni-inclusive, international trade setup''

OOOOooh... so you mean like a american corporation paying for the labor of the country? In other words on an international level. Trade doesn't necessarily mean good for good, it can mean capital for labor as scene in this case.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

-Dan

DyNoMiTe!
 
And I didn't contradict myself. If you consider outsourcing a major component of globalization, good for you. I don't. I did, however, say that it was a sort of subset of globalization. There is no contradiction there.

And, once again, stop with the personal attacks. You'd lose this if it were a formal debate, and you'd be thrown out of court if it were a trial. You take away from the authenticity of your ownarguments when you attack me, personally, instead of my arguments (which, I might add, are correct).

 
good point. this is where globalization gets ambiguous, though. is the omni-inclusive trade agreement between the people of the world, or is it between the governments? It could be defined either way, and if you define it as an agreement between individuals, you're correct.

 
Listen, globalization isn't something you can have your own term of. There is one set term. It isn't ambiguious at all.

Please give evidence on how I have contradicted myself or invalidated any of my arguments. I have done so repeatedly for yours, in fact, none of your arguments even remain valid.

If this was a formal debate? A court case? What the hell are you talking about? You can't compare a free flowing discussion to either of those. It just doesn't work. Generally though, the person with valid points is the one who wins a debate. In case you haven't been paying attention, that's me.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

-Dan

DyNoMiTe!
 
i beliueve its that whole mentality of 'we are americans, we can do whatever the fuck we want, because we got the army, and the money to do so' that will be the downfall of the us. Invading a country will just spread your armies out more. People hate the us for statements like that, so rather than negotiate, and try and prevent this from happening, the US' foreign policy smears this into other countries faces. The US is in deep trouble with iraq. Blair will sadly be kicked out of office soon, (my fave prime minister who did a stupid mistake), and now australias prime minister is under heavy scrutiny). The US may have the mite to destroy whatever threats are there in short term, but its intelligence that will conquer this foe, and by invading iraq it showed one thing that the american government lacks...

'We can dance if we want to, we can leave your friends behind, cause they dont dance, and if they dont dance they aint no friends of mine.'

Me- come here doggy

Karl-I dont think he understands english man

Alex-yeah, it is a GERMAN shepherd
 
alright guys, i think the kid learned his lesson (Not trying to make you sound inferior or little or anything sundown, it isn't my intent) so just stop arguing the same points over and over again and leave him be...

On my way to goddom
 
No, its neither of those. Its between firms (corporations) and households (people). There is no way it can be obscured.

That's how it works economic definition.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

-Dan

DyNoMiTe!
 
im goin with skisundown, step off maximum sushi, you done fucked up too

___________________

Silly Rabbits. Pink is for cheese! –stevexs2

you bettter still have my jagermeister shirt, or I'll fucking drive a train through your anus. – jibtech

numbers are for jewish investment bankers - sleezemcfly

Somedays I like it crunchy, other days I take it up the ass! - Lanemeyers

Sam Caylor - Famed Fatass, Post Whore, And All Around Slut Bag
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top