Ahmadinejad: 'American Empire' Nearing Its End
POSTED BY: Wulfenstar
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 13:29
VIEWED: 7899
PAGE 5 of 6
Quote:Because there are no such parallels. Rome as a parallel to a modern state would be far more similar to Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. One that can be seen from comparing ancient Rome to the US is how lucky we are to live in a state that is as free and prosperous as the US. In ancient Rome I would have been born into the plebeian lower class with no hope of ever being anything. When Rome invaded another nation, they raped it of its cultural wealth, massacred its population, crucified its leaders and then established a new Roman government either on the ruins of the native or next to it with supreme power.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Finn, if you know this stuff that well, then why are you so blind to it's parallels on our own soil ?!
You simply cannot pull an ancient state out of the history books and expect any kind of simple comparisons with the modern world.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We have camped our soldiers in all kinds of places all over the world in the name of "anticommunism". We've sent in our agents, trained the "security forces" through AID, and provided weapons and intel all over the world, in the name of "anticommunism".
It all sounds very noble, until you look into what we actually DID.
Did we bring democracy?
Uh, no. In a lot of cases, we directly overthrew/ or conspired to overthrow democractically-elected governments.
Did we bring freedom?
No, in a lot of cases we installed or supported tyrants. And I don't mean nominal tyrants, I mean tyrants who "disappeared" large number of ppl for the pleasure of ripping off their body part little by little, and who massacred tens to hundred of thousands.
Did we bring prosperity?
No again. I can point to nation after nation that went into an economic hellhole after our "intervention"
WHAT WERE WE DEFENDING THEN? If it wasn't democracy, or human rights, or economic prospertiy?
Very simple: We were defending CAPITALISM.
Peeps really get this whole democracy/ capitalism thing mixed up. They're not the same. Deal with it.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
When Rome invaded another nation, they raped it of its cultural wealth, massacred its population, crucified its leaders and then established a new Roman government either on the ruins of the native or next to it with supreme power.
Gee, that sounds kinda familiar...
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not really. And that’s the reason why you can’t make those kinds of comparisons. You don’t agree with the Iraq war, so you misuse historical comparisons to push that disagreement. But when placed side by side, there is no comparison. Rome massacred half the population of Gaul for instance. We would have to kill 12 million people in Iraq to even match that, as it turns out more people have died in Iraq trying to keep the peace during 12 years of sanctions then during the war that followed. It’s not that comparisons can’t be made; it’s that you can’t make them without also making the contrasts. And people tend to look at Rome and take an ounce of comparison while ignoring a pound of contrast because they are looking for something to push their own opinion, not because they really care about whether the comparison is meaningful or not.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:Quote:
When Rome invaded another nation, they raped it of its cultural wealth, massacred its population, crucified its leaders and then established a new Roman government either on the ruins of the native or next to it with supreme power.
Gee, that sounds kinda familiar...
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just cause we're a lot nicer about it, don't mean we ain't doin it.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But Finn, you have yet to explain to everyone on the board what the hell we're doing ALL OVER THE FRIGGIN' WORLD.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Very true, I know many non evangelicals who are anti choice. But I have yet to meet an evangelical that is pro choice. I admit the generalization and that's it's probably an isolated thing here in Liberal Northern California, limited further only to my experience.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
One need not be an evangelical, or even religious in any way to see that abortion past the 1st Trimester is potentially a major problem, constitutinally speaking. The very legitimate issue arises as to when an unborn becomes a recognized 'individual' , a human whose rights are to be protected, the same as the mother's.
What I'd like to know is if the Old or New Testament says anything about abortion. I don't even wanna know how they did them back then if they did. But I wonder if organized pro life doctrine started as a moral, instinctual, or a legal matter, or a combination.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Bible refers to "quickening" as the start of human life. Basically, when fetal movement is felt- fourth or fith month. Here is an interestin take on it:
Quote:
The notion that abortion prior to "quickening" is murder cannot be supported by the Bible. To the contrary, the Bible recommends administering an abortifacient to a wife if her husband suspects her of being unfaithful.
Numbers 5:11-29. A priest would administer the abortifacient ("water of bitterness", Num. 5-17-18) and if the woman has in fact been unfaithful, the water would "make your uterus drop, your womb discharge". Num. 5-21,22, and 27.
A distinction between punishments for accidently inducing an abortion (paying a fine) and killing a human being (being put to death) was reflected in the earliest known legal codes, including the Code of Hammurabi. Similarly, the law of Moses could distinguish between aborting a fetus and injuring a human being:
21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 21:23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 21:25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Exodus 21:22-25.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SO Finn, I know that you won't answer my question as to what we're doing all over the world, because I'd be very specific and ask you:
What did we do in that nation, what did we do in this other nation? And since our intentions were honorable and our actions beneficial in some places, but in MANY places there was no sensible increase in democracy, no improved human rights, and no greater prosperity... well, then, you might have a hard time actually justifying our interventions with "the usual".
Sorry to say that you're unwilling to follow a trail of logic to its bitter, if insightful, end.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don’t have to explain what the hell we’re doing all over the friggin’ world. It’s sufficient that I point out that the definition of ‘empire’ is not consistent with the description of the US, which I’ve done and other people have done as well. I don’t think you can make a compelling case that US troops are in Germany, Japan, Italy, Belgium etc because we control these countries. Furthermore, I don’t think you can make a compelling case that the US is a military dictatorship. So you see, I really don’t even need to discuss why the US does what it does to demonstrate that it is not an empire – it’s in the definition and the history of the word. It doesn’t apply to the US. And if you can’t see this simple fact, then going any further into the issue is probably going to be fruitless. But you have demonstrated my point for me, which is that people call the US an “empire” not because it is, but because they disagree with some aspect of its foreign policy. I don’t know what you have against overseas bases – maybe you think we should be isolationist, or maybe you don’t like that we fought the Cold War, or whatever, but whatever it is, it has nothing to do with the US being an empire.
Originally posted by SignyM:
But Finn, you have yet to explain to everyone on the board what the hell we're doing ALL OVER THE FRIGGIN' WORLD.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME