Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/26/06 12:03 PM, TheMason wrote: Germany had the rocket science. However, Hitler saw physics as a Jewish sciencand disapproved of it until the US started the Manhattan Project.

Rocket science is also physics, mechanics to be exact. Besides, if they really abhorred nuclear physics, explain this.

They have no incentive to revoke it because their stability is assured by the presence of US troops as well as US led efforts to bring about cooperative, transparent alliances such as NATO.

Wrong, they have no incentive to revoke it because it would cause an international uproar that they don't want to risk, especially among their own neighbours rather than the US. And without the NATO, they'd have the UK and France watching their backs. And, if they violated the treaty they wouldn't be able to criticise governments like the Argentinean government for pursuing nuclear missile programs.

If we were not a stabilizing factor, then why is it France and UK's stockpile is so small?

Because, like I said earlier, even a few nukes render a country free from foreign incursion. The few hundred they have are plenty to make Russia think twice about invading.

But the point is history could have gone this way or that in regards to nuclear weapons but it didn't.

If you're talking about the absence of war, it didn't happen because of the consequences. If you're talking about Germany not getting the bomb before the US, it doesn't matter because the bomb wasn't a indistinguishably American invention, others would have discovered the exact same.

True all nations have their part, but why is it that under American stewardship more boats have seemed to rise than under European stewardship?

What a pathetic question, I'm not going for a "Europe vs America" debate here, I've sort of outgrown that whole deal. I'm questioning the amount of influence the US itself had on peace and stability when we discard external factors, you know, the "Americana" part of the Pax Americana. Globalisation isn't a purely American concept.

Also China's rise is a direct result of US investment (not pressure). Their 30 something years of meteoric economic rise began after Nixon's detente with Beijing.

Nixon and China's economic revival are almost completely uncorrelated. His visit predated Chinese economic revival by at least 10 years and I think the failure of Chinese collective farming communities were more of a reason for reforms than a foreigner who visited their country a decade earlier. Most foreign investment traditionally comes from Hong Kong by the way (picture), the former British enclave. The US and Japan are nearly equals.

Also, where would their market be without the US? Who would they have sold to?

Japan? Europe?

Guess what this meant; the US paid the defense bill. France and Germany, whose economies cannot sustain the defense budget the US can, could spend their money on their social programs and promote economic issues as their FP priorites.

And guess what, they had to pay for those bills in the Weimar Republic too and yet they witnessed an economic recovery during Stresemann's golden era, because of his economic reforms. Like I said, the aid and soldiers expedited recovery but they didn't cause it. That point stands.

You still haven't contradicted my point! France and Germany won't go to war because the US military presence provided a disincentive to maintaining a military that would allow them to fight.

Well, I did say that they won't go to war because of the memories of WW2, not because of the American soldiers stationed there, which seemed to be your point. France and Germany would have rebuilt their militaries under any circumstance like we actually saw in recent years and during the Interbellum. They didn't go to war right away, sure, they also didn't do so after WW1 without the "Pax Americana" - they did it later on because there wasn't a EU predecessor present and because of an unfair Versailles treaty. Maybe the presence of American soldiers gave them the opportunity to spend a little less on defense, expediting recovery. But it didn't cause recovery, which was my point.

It would've happened, but not on the scale it has without the US.

Good. Then why call it "Pax Americana" when the US wasn't the primary cause? If you help expedite something, does that make the event solely your achievement?

And guess what; that was the same for the Romans. They were interdependent upon those tribes/people that they conquered. The Romans introduced Globalization 1.0.

Sigh, upon the people they conquered as a whole maybe, but not on the conquered tribes individually and certainly not upon other nations. They weren't interdependent in the way modern nations are interdependent, not by a long shot. When the US declare war on China and the Chinese sell all their dollars the value of the dollar would plummet, which isn't a good thing for a nation with a negative trade balance such as the US. Rome didn't quite suffer equally serious economic repercussions when going to war with the Parthians or the Gauls. Your point is ridiculous - you're saying the degree of interdependence is the same between Rome and, say, Carthage as it is between superpowers today?

At 10/26/06 12:56 PM, Sineater7 wrote: ENOUGH with the multiple correction quotings! Damn, how many posts are on this overstretched page?

I've seen a lot worse. We haven't even reached the stage were our intended messages don't fit in one post and we have to start using multiple posts to get our point across.

Well well well, another America-Rome comparison debate. And whadya know, Imperator is here.

Now for something unexpected.

I know we've been on opposite ends in most discussions we've both played a part in, Imperator, but I actually agree with pretty much everything you've said.

I have my own parallel to add:

Before Rome became Imperial, much of the power and land was held by the great families, including the Julii, the Brutii, and the Scipii. These families did the bidding of the republican senate, while trying to advance their own influence and political weight and sabotage their rivals' plans. Eventually, one family, the Julii, rose up and took absolute power, who we commonly know as Julius Caesar (I know he had many names throughout his life). Then, land was power, and money the way the power was moved and utilised.

Now, commodity is power, with money still the arbiter. America does indeed have an empire; an economic one. MacDonald's can be found on most of the planet, the most widely used computer software runs with Microsoft Windows, and Oil, vital to most transportation, is traded in American currency. The companies obey american and international law (for the most part) while trying to advance their own market share, and put down their rivals. They are owned by powerful families, admittedly not exclusively genetic ones, but still powerful groups of people.

If one of these companies were to rise up, they could, quite possibly, bring america to it's knees, and gain a lot more than profit margins. Then, an economic american empire would be born, sweeping away opposition abroad, until everyone everywhere is buying american. The basis for this is already in place, with american brands all over the world.

Powerful groups of people, with lots of influence, under a political system, waiting for the right time to overthrow it.

Give that one some thought...

At 10/26/06 01:23 PM, Leonardo-Da-Finchy wrote: Before Rome became Imperial, much of the power and land was held by the great families, including the Julii, the Brutii, and the Scipii.

Haha, I'm guessing you played Rome: Total War. Like servus becomes servi when converted form singular to plural, Graecus becomes Graeci and Julius becomes Julii. Brutus, analogously, becomes Bruti, not Brutii. A short internet search shows that Scipio becomes Scipiones.

At 10/26/06 01:57 PM, lapis wrote: Haha, I'm guessing you played Rome: Total War. Like servus becomes servi when converted form singular to plural, Graecus becomes Graeci and Julius becomes Julii. Brutus, analogously, becomes Bruti, not Brutii. A short internet search shows that Scipio becomes Scipiones.

Ah, Brutus blockhead.. He was a good man.. On par with Horatius Cocles and Gaius Mucius Scaevola in my opinion.

At 10/26/06 01:57 PM, lapis wrote:

At 10/26/06 01:23 PM, Leonardo-Da-Finchy wrote: Before Rome became Imperial, much of the power and land was held by the great families, including the Julii, the Brutii, and the Scipii.

Haha, I'm guessing you played Rome: Total War.

Aah, you got me. But no historical game goes without firm roots in truth...

Like servus becomes servi when converted form singular to plural, Graecus becomes Graeci and Julius becomes Julii. Brutus, analogously, becomes Bruti, not Brutii. A short internet search shows that Scipio becomes Scipiones.

...though admittedly, spellings can go a bit awry.

I'm sure you get my point though, and I did leave it open when I said "...powerful families, including...".

Powerful "families" like Halliburton, with political connections (Dick Cheney) could perform the same things as the Julii did back then, albeit on an economical scope rather than a territorial one.

At 10/26/06 01:11 PM, lapis wrote:

At 10/26/06 12:03 PM, TheMason wrote: Germany had the rocket science. However, Hitler saw physics as a Jewish sciencand disapproved of it until the US started the Manhattan Project.

Rocket science is also physics, mechanics to be exact. Besides, if they really abhorred nuclear physics, explain this.

If I remember correctly the Manhattan Project was underway well before 1944/45 when that article says the German tests took place. Furthermore, Hitler did not totally dismiss nuclear science (and yes he made a distinction between rocketry and physics...remember we're talking about a madman).

Hitler got involved in weapons development to the point of hindering it. However in some cases his engineers found ways around his sanctions (look up the history on the MP-45, the AK-47's predecessor).

:: Wrong, they have no incentive to revoke it because it would cause an international uproar that they don't want to risk, especially among their own neighbours rather than the US. And without the NATO, they'd have the UK and France watching their backs. And, if they violated the treaty they wouldn't be able to criticise governments like the Argentinean government for pursuing nuclear missile programs.

Iran and the DPRK are showing the world that the NPT has no teeth...

:: Because, like I said earlier, even a few nukes render a country free from foreign incursion. The few hundred they have are plenty to make Russia think twice about invading.

If you're talking about the absence of war, it didn't happen because of the consequences. If you're talking about Germany not getting the bomb before the US, it doesn't matter because the bomb wasn't a indistinguishably American invention, others would have discovered the exact same.

Lapis I truly respect your opinions and you often provide much insight. But here you are dealing in "what ifs"...it did not happen that way so you cannot use this argument to disprove a Pax Americana.

What a pathetic question, I'm not going for a "Europe vs America" debate here, I've sort of outgrown that whole deal. I'm questioning the amount of influence the US itself had on peace and stability when we discard external factors, you know, the "Americana" part of the Pax Americana. Globalisation isn't a purely American concept.

Believe it or not I'm not going for a Europe vs America debate. The Industrial Revolution that happened in Europe was Globalization 2.0. They laid the foundation, now America is the steward of the ship. If we were not, why would the American President have the power to appoint the head of the World Bank?

:: Nixon and China's economic revival are almost completely uncorrelated. His visit predated Chinese economic revival by at least 10 years and I think the failure of Chinese collective farming communities were more of a reason for reforms than a foreigner who visited their country a decade earlier.

Nixon visited China in 1972. China started achieving double digit growth in about 1975. Yes there were domestic factors in China that enabled the entrance of US investment into China...but there is a strong correlation there...

Japan? Europe?

Do you realize just how strong the animosity in the region is towards Japan? People talk about the ME and how ancient a conflict that is...that is nothing compared to Japan and China. Japan is not a natural market for China and vice versa...

Furthermore, Europe was looked at as repressive colonial powers and looked up very suspiciously. The US, while having some taint, was relatively free when compared to France and the UK...

Like I said, the aid and soldiers expedited recovery but they didn't cause it. That point stands.

It has made recovery quicker, more effecient and sustainable. France and Germany could not provide the social services they do today without the US military being there. WWII memories are starting fade. Right now they are taxed at a higher rate than Americans without having our military spending. How do you think they'd react to having to foot the bill? The US military presence expedited the recovery, but it has also helped sustain it. The US fought the majority of the Cold War, and even tried saving France's failed colony in Vietnam. Recovery after war is a natural thing, but I doubt it would have been as good had it not been for the US.

the people they conquered as a whole maybe, but not on the conquered tribes individually and certainly not upon other nations. They weren't interdependent in the way modern nations are interdependent, not by a long shot. Your point is ridiculous - you're saying the degree of interdependence is the same between Rome and, say, Carthage as it is between superpowers today?

Look things do evolve, and a direct 1 for 1 correlation is not possible whenever comparing anything political. Globalization has evolved since the classical period, and one of the improvements that the US has made on it is that we encourage mutually beneficial trade with the majority of our trading partners. We have made ourselves interdependent upon our own system and hold ourselves to those rules. Thereby, we create a Pax Americana which limits our own ability to fight a major total war.

At 10/26/06 12:03 PM, TheMason wrote: Germany had the rocket science. However, Hitler saw physics as a Jewish sciencand disapproved of it until the US started the Manhattan Project.

Why did I find that funny?

Well, the Roman empire lasted almost 2 millenia (Byzantium didn't fall until 1453), I can't think of any other civilization that accomplished the same. But comparing the US to tha Roman empire is quite possible. You can compare anything toanything, if you want to. You said "it's like comparing an ostrich to a dodo". But even they have similarities. And it just happens to be that the similarities between the Roman and American empire are quite plentiful.

I can't see how you could compare the too.

Rome was a CITY which conquered the world to become a huge succesfull empire.

America isa massive bit of land which is full of resources which was colonised by a huge Succsesfull empire. Became a large population, revolted and got independence. Then grew an grew fairly peacefully away from the dangers of the rest of the world until unleashing there power in WW2 when the powerfull countries had basically collapsed.

I can't see America coming to an End anytime soon, but i can see other super powers emerging.

Okay, you pricks, I made a bad metaphor, but a metaphor nonetheless.

A Dodo, being a flightless bird with no natural enemies, meeting its own demise due to outside forces. Rome being the dodo, and the Huns, Goths, Visigoths etc being the Humans, Dogs and rats that killed the Dodo.

The Ostrich, being another flightless bird, has natural enemies such as the lion, hyena and Wild Dog and is still flourishing to this day. America being the Ostrich, and the natural enemies being Terrorists etc.

Mehh.....I suck at Metaphoring (Did I just make up a word? I think yes!)

At 10/26/06 07:13 PM, Bull-Hound wrote: Okay, you pricks, I made a bad metaphor, but a metaphor nonetheless.

A Dodo, being a flightless bird with no natural enemies, meeting its own demise due to outside forces. Rome being the dodo, and the Huns, Goths, Visigoths etc being the Humans, Dogs and rats that killed the Dodo.

The Ostrich, being another flightless bird, has natural enemies such as the lion, hyena and Wild Dog and is still flourishing to this day. America being the Ostrich, and the natural enemies being Terrorists etc.

Mehh.....I suck at Metaphoring (Did I just make up a word? I think yes!)

America is still flourishing to this day, but it's only been 200 an something years.

thats like comparing an old man who died ages ago to a newly born baby.
lol
(just trying my hand at some meaphoring)

Well well well, another America-Rome comparison debate. And whadya know, Imperator is here.

:)

Aah, you got me. But no historical game goes without firm roots in truth...

In that case, you want this Mod for Rome: Total War.

http://www.rometotalrealism.com/

Rome: Total Realism. About 500,000,000,000% more historically accurate than the original (I play this too...., surprise surprise.....)

At least I finally remembered that word I was thinking of:

Domus was the word that meant home/house.

Domus
Demos.

Ahhh, I was close..... :(

Eventually, one family, the Julii, rose up and took absolute power, who we commonly know as Julius Caesar (I know he had many names throughout his life). Then, land was power, and money the way the power was moved and utilised.

Incorrect. The ascendency of individual aristocrats above all others really started with The Gracchi brothers. Then we have Sulla and Marius, who were the first two to take absolute power in the Roman Republic (by force, not by request of the Roman Gov't, ie, dictatorship).

Caesar mimicked their examples.

Also Imperator, don't leave out us Political Scientists and current historians! Many of us keep our ears to the ground listening for history's clock to bring us around full circle!

Well you know us. We're too busy examining coins and stuff to pay much attention to other things at times.....our bad....

Why would the definition of Empire be any different.

Where the hell were you when I was arguing that with Grammar?

Powerful "families" like Halliburton, with political connections (Dick Cheney) could perform the same things as the Julii did back then, albeit on an economical scope rather than a territorial one.

Only slightly true. Powerful families did exist, but in the end Romans were very merit based. And Roman economy and the wealth of families often came as the RESULT of political/military offices, not as a connector.

Being a Consul was a good way to get rich quick, especially if there was a war.

I can't see how you could compare the too.

Stay in school, they'll get around to you eventually.....

Rome was a CITY which conquered the world to become a huge succesfull empire.

Correct. Rome was a backwater town that overshadowed even the mighty Macedonians at their height. They were the leading power in the ancient world for several hundred years.

America isa massive bit of land which is full of resources which was colonised by a huge Succsesfull empire. Became a large population, revolted and got independence. Then grew an grew fairly peacefully away from the dangers of the rest of the world until unleashing there power in WW2 when the powerfull countries had basically collapsed.

America was a backwater province that overshadows even the mighty USSR, Imperial Japan, Germany, etc at our height. We are the bringers of peace and prosperity to the known world.......just like Rome......

I can't see America coming to an End anytime soon, but i can see other super powers emerging.

I really can't see another super power emerging. I see new powers rising fast (China, India), but frankly, I don't see a new Super Power and World Police rising for a few hundred years (save something drastic happening). No one's at the level yet where they can deploy a highly technically advanced army throughout the world, as well as maintain the role as the economic center of the world.

At 10/26/06 11:40 AM, scottish-cunt wrote: I think its cool comparing Rome to the US.

When they fall they fall hard.

Really? I like comparing Scotland and the Kingdom of the Basques.

Why? Because both did absolutely nothing that is essential to the difference of the World. Sure, Scottish PEOPLE make some nice contributations, but Scotland as a whole...just feminine Irishman is all.

Hey Mason, since you said you were in Korea (still in? I don't remember) for a while.

Here's MY solution to the North Korean and South Korean problems....

http://youtube.com/w..;search=korea%20bboy

Fuckin Breakdance battle suckah!!!!

And what happened to rome? They disappeared up their own asses, their decadent lifestyles and past millitary victories made them think they were invincible and they underestimated their enemies.Though the roman empire split before this, each half was (by comparison) probably the strength of the US nowadays

At 10/26/06 07:13 PM, Bull-Hound wrote: Okay, you pricks, I made a bad metaphor, but a metaphor nonetheless.

A Dodo, being a flightless bird with no natural enemies, meeting its own demise due to outside forces. Rome being the dodo, and the Huns, Goths, Visigoths etc being the Humans, Dogs and rats that killed the Dodo.

No natural enemies? Even after the defeat of the Gauls, Egyptians, Greeks, Carthage,..., they still had quite a number of enemies (mostly German tribes). Yes, corruption and invading 'barbarians' severely weakened the Western Roman Empire in the last 2 centuries of its existence, until the fall of Rome in 476, but calling them a dodo is an insult. Especially when you say America is superiour. The Romans forged an empire with, by our standards, primitive tools and weaponry, by conquering and enslaving dozens of civilizations and cultures. The Americans, after 'liberating' themselves in 1776, simply pushed westward, paying little attention to the locals that already inhabited the area. Using advanced weaponry against small, more primitive, tribal civilizations is hardly an honourable way of claiming territory. Of course, the Native Americans eventually assembled a large amount of rifles through trade later on. Annexating one third of your current territory from the Mexicans (well, they fought back though) isn't exactly as tough as slowly defeating and conquering foe after foe.

The Ostrich, being another flightless bird, has natural enemies such as the lion, hyena and Wild Dog and is still flourishing to this day. America being the Ostrich, and the natural enemies being Terrorists etc.

'Natural enemies'? In that case, New Zealand's sole enemy is France, who blew up a ship from Greenpeace a (couple of?) decade(s) ago. And of course, America, a relatively young naton/empire, still 'flourishes'. Although really, things haven't been going to well lately, have they? Claiming America, a 330 year old nation, with advanced ways of expanding and maintaining a civilization, is superiour to an empire, forged and kept together with primitve means, that lasted for more then 2 MILLENIA, is ridiculous.

Mehh.....I suck at Metaphoring (Did I just make up a word? I think yes!)

Contact Websters.

At 10/23/06 05:12 PM, SonicSheep wrote:

At 10/23/06 04:50 PM, neoptolemus wrote:

The diffrence being, that the Roman Empire collapsed becasue it got divieded into 2, then everyone jumped in, and conquerd land, then finally Rome fell to barbarians,
Whereas the British EMpire lasted over 200 years, and even now, Canada and Australia still have the Queen on there Money,

I think youll find that the roman empire lasted much longer than 200 years.

At 10/26/06 04:54 PM, TheMason wrote: If I remember correctly the Manhattan Project was underway well before 1944/45 when that article says the German tests took place.

Right, but the Germans and Japanese didn't know about it. I even doubt they knew of the Trinity tests. Besides, the Manhattan project was started because of the Einstein-Szilárd letter in which the authors made a reference to German efforts in gathering uranium. The German physicist Heisenberg even mentioned nuclear weapons to Bohr in 1941, before the Manhattan Project started in 1942.

If we should name the MAD-inspired peace we've witnessed in recent decennia after the US because they first completed a nuclear bomb then we could just as well name the peace after Einstein and Szilárd. Since they were both ethnic Jews we could name it "Pax Iudaea", we don't because, unlike the Deutsche Physik movement believed, atomic physics isn't an inherently Jewish science and nukes therefore aren't Jewish weapons, just like they aren't inherently American weapons and just like globalisation isn't an inherently American concept. The peace is created by the nukes themselves, not by those who partly contributed to their discovery because there are so many who made their contributions.

Furthermore, Hitler did not totally dismiss nuclear science (and yes he made a distinction between rocketry and physics...remember we're talking about a madman).

Good, that was what the link illustrated. Ans you also treated mechanics and physics as separate subjects, which is why I commented on it.

Hitler got involved in weapons development to the point of hindering it. However in some cases his engineers found ways around his sanctions (look up the history on the MP-45, the AK-47's predecessor).

Right, but not in the case of nuclear weapons. Even Hitler realised their potential to an extent where he didn't discard it as an impurity.

Iran and the DPRK are showing the world that the NPT has no teeth...

And maybe Germany and Fracne don't want to share the international allure of being a rogue nation with Iran and North Korea. They have partners they don't want to upset while your examples have a lot less valuable goodwill that they'd lose.

Lapis I truly respect your opinions and you often provide much insight. But here you are dealing in "what ifs"...it did not happen that way so you cannot use this argument to disprove a Pax Americana.

I don't think you're disputing the fact that possession of nuclear weapons deters other nations from invading, so I'll move on to the claim that nuclear weapons would have eventually been developped even without the Manhattan Project. Let's say we have three substances that cause a certain reaction and we want to know which of them are reagents and which are catalysts, the best way to check this is to remove one substance form the process and watch if the same reaction occurs. Since history isn't a laboratorial experiment so all we can do is making occurrences plausible.

Some ideas are so good that they're bound to be discovered. The art of writing, counting, gunpowder, the printing press, sets of laws and even calculus were discovered at diferent locations independently from each other. Nuclear energy provides some of the most powerful weapons available on earth and there was even ample research that suggested the existence of these weapons before the US government became involved. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institut had long been the centre of atomic research and the existence of the weapon had been widely hypothesised. Eventually, a breakthrough would have occurred, outside the US. This isn't a wild "what-if", it's simple logic.

They laid the foundation, now America is the steward of the ship.

And why name a historic process after the temporary steward? Let's say we have a market with about 15 corporations and one of them, company A, has the biggest market share. Now let's say the market suddenly starts growing - we would name the growth after company A if the growth was the direct result of that company, meaning that the growth wouldn't have occurred if company A hadn't taken any action. When all companies are responsible for the growth, however, we don't name it after company A for the reason that they're the "stewart".

Nixon visited China in 1972. China started achieving double digit growth in about 1975. Yes there were domestic factors in China that enabled the entrance of US investment into China...but there is a strong correlation there...

They had 19.4% growth as early as 1970, 1978 was a statistical outlier. Like they say in the article: 1983-85 Double-digit real GDP growth accompanied the first wave of foreign investment into China, and non-state enterprises started to develop. My estimate of about decade comes a lot closer. And FDI didn't boom until the nineties (picture).

Do you realize just how strong the animosity in the region is towards Japan? People talk about the ME and how ancient a conflict that is...that is nothing compared to Japan and China. Japan is not a natural market for China and vice versa...

And as the previous picture showed, that doesn't quite stop Japan from investing huge amounts of money into China, does it? Relations have been incredibly sour over the past few years, with Koizumi's visits to the Yasukuni Shrine and yet trade is blossoming. There's one thing that overcomes hostility and that's money: you don't have to like each other to make a profit and help your own economy.

Furthermore, Europe was looked at as repressive colonial powers and looked up very suspiciously. The US, while having some taint, was relatively free when compared to France and the UK...

Yeah, I find it hard to believe that you represent anyone but yourself with that viewpoint. The US was just as much involved in quelling the Boxer's revolt as most European nations, they supported Chiang Kai Shek more than any other nation and basically turned anti-Chinese Taiwan into a protectorate. If you have any evidence that whatever anti-Western feeling the Chinese have or had is more of an anti-European mood then please show me some evidence.

It has made recovery quicker, more effecient and sustainable. France and Germany could not provide the social services they do today without the US military being there. WWII memories are starting fade.

Right, but an internal feeling of animosity isn't resurging, thanks to the EU and men like Adenauer. When a conflict arises between Spain and Poland over EU budget allocations a war is the last people would think about.

Right now they are taxed at a higher rate than Americans without having our military spending. How do you think they'd react to having to foot the bill?

They won't have to. Right now, Europe packs enough heat to deter an invasion from any other country and to get back to an earlier point, there are also nukes in play. We're dependent on Russian and Middle Eastern oil flows but we wouldn't be any less dependent if we had numerous soldiers stationed in different countries. A defense would have had to been built up shortly after the war, slowing down recovery, but after the recovery and the acquisition of a nuclear arsenal these costs wouldn't need to rise nearly as much as the GDP was growing, percentage-wise.

The US fought the majority of the Cold War, and even tried saving France's failed colony in Vietnam.

And the US shouldn't have done that. France was abandoning the quagmire and the US stepped in, but if Vietnam had fell into Communist hands a little while earlier the effects on European recovery would have been about nil.

Recovery after war is a natural thing, but I doubt it would have been as good had it not been for the US.

It would have simply taken more time.

Look things do evolve, and a direct 1 for 1 correlation is not possible whenever comparing anything political.

I'm not asking for perfect correlation, but the two forms of "globalisation" are so different that they're hardly comparable. The Roman "globalisation" didn't deter nations from going to war, period. There were no Dacians who owned so many Roman government bonds and denarii that they could bring the Roman economy to a grinding halt. Peace was dictated by the sword. Today, attempts to do the same tend to fail miserably.

Globalization has evolved since the classical period, and one of the improvements that the US has made on it is that we encourage mutually beneficial trade with the majority of our trading partners.

That's necessity, not benevolence. Whenever a trade dispute arises the US can do nothing what others nations cannot. Tariffs are increased and all that jazz, which is a response to tariffs or quotas being imposed on US products in the first place. There's no control by one major power over the other, it's a game of give and take but whenever the scales don't favour the US they can't establish dominance the way the Romans did. The US is the biggest player but the system doesn't survive by the sole grace of the US government.

We have made ourselves interdependent upon our own system and hold ourselves to those rules. Thereby, we create a Pax Americana which limits our own ability to fight a major total war.

And again, necessity. The US sticks to the rules because there are no feasible alternatives. When China sells huge shipments of armanent to Third World countries the US government can do little but bite their fingernails.

And why name a historic process after the temporary steward?

Lapis: For the same reason we call it Pax Romana.

I'm sure if we delved deep enough we'd see that Pax Romana had less to do with the actual Romans doing than outside influences shaping the world in a way where major conflict stopped.

But that isn't giving credit where credit is due.....

Henry Ford didn't invent the first car. But he's well known for making the automotive industry what it is today.

Edison didn't invent the first lightbulb. But he's responsible for it being in every house across the globe.

Saying we can't consider a Pax Americana because of XXX is like saying these people don't count as inventors because they were just improving on previous people's works.

Ughhh, did we abandon the topic?

At 10/27/06 11:22 AM, Imperator wrote: I'm sure if we delved deep enough we'd see that Pax Romana had less to do with the actual Romans doing than outside influences shaping the world in a way where major conflict stopped.

What was the nuke, or globalisation then? What inevitable discovery led to Rome's surge that didn't seem to affect other powers for a good millennium?

The Pax Romana referred to the peace in the Roman territories that hadn't been at peace for centuries. The Romans went in and enforced peace. The peace was their doing because if they hadn't invaded there would have been no peace. This is entirely different nowadays, peace isn't enforced by one nation but it has become a dire necessity. The steward is not the one who creates the peace, but the one who happens to be steward when the inevitable peace has come into existence between the larger powers. Therefore, there's no reason to give the sole credit to the steward.

Saying we can't consider a Pax Americana because of XXX is like saying these people don't count as inventors because they were just improving on previous people's works.

They count as inventors and I give credit whenever people deserve it, but that doesn't mean that the lightbulb I'm looking at right now is the direct result of Edison being born - it would have been invented anyway. He's a great inventor but that doesn't make him solely responsible for what was bound to be discovered. I don't call the light in my room "Lux Edisona".

the lupanare in Pompei has been restored, road trip anyone?

At 10/23/06 03:19 PM, Imperator wrote: and the US based its government off the Romans,

What? They got their government from the GREEKS! Ever hear of Democratus? No Romans were -atus's. Seriously. Name one Roman philosopher that most (semi-intelligent) people would have heard of.

How can you not see the simi... oh you're a kid.

At 10/27/06 07:10 AM, Athlas wrote:

No natural enemies? Even after the defeat of the Gauls, Egyptians, Greeks, Carthage,..., they still had quite a number of enemies (mostly German tribes). Yes, corruption and invading 'barbarians' severely weakened the Western Roman Empire in the last 2 centuries of its existence, until the fall of Rome in 476, but calling them a dodo is an insult. Especially when you say America is superiour. The Romans forged an empire with, by our standards, primitive tools and weaponry, by conquering and enslaving dozens of civilizations and cultures. The Americans, after 'liberating' themselves in 1776, simply pushed westward, paying little attention to the locals that already inhabited the area. Using advanced weaponry against small, more primitive, tribal civilizations is hardly an honourable way of claiming territory. Of course, the Native Americans eventually assembled a large amount of rifles through trade later on. Annexating one third of your current territory from the Mexicans (well, they fought back though) isn't exactly as tough as slowly defeating and conquering foe after foe.

Yet again, I am talking about Rome and America at their heights. Ever notice that once Rome stopped ruling with an Iron fist that there was a breakdown of order and rebellion in the Gaulish, Hispanic and African provinces?

'Natural enemies'? In that case, New Zealand's sole enemy is France, who blew up a ship from Greenpeace a (couple of?) decade(s) ago. And of course, America, a relatively young naton/empire, still 'flourishes'. Although really, things haven't been going to well lately, have they? Claiming America, a 330 year old nation, with advanced ways of expanding and maintaining a civilization, is superiour to an empire, forged and kept together with primitve means, that lasted for more then 2 MILLENIA, is ridiculous.

Rome was Primitive? Hows Aquaducts, Colleseums, ROADS, and actually being able to defend yourself with thousands upon thousands of followers ready to lick your ass at your whim? And am I wrong to say that America is still flourishing? We've lasted a lot longer then Imperialistic Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Japan and China. America has outlasted the Soviets in Russia and the Nazis in Germany, haven't we? We've come a lot longer then Britian, France, Germany, Prussia, Russia, Italy, Greece, etc. in Militaristic and Economic ways and those are all ancient civilizations and countries, right? Hell, we can probably even outmatch the Chinese who have been here, for how long? 6,000 years? All compared to a country that has been here for less than 500 years.

Contact Websters.

Suck Mine.

At 10/27/06 10:50 PM, Cole wrote: What? They got their government from the GREEKS! Ever hear of Democratus? No Romans were -atus's. Seriously. Name one Roman philosopher that most (semi-intelligent) people would have heard of.

Rome was a republic, and you are an idiot.

At 10/26/06 07:08 PM, zzzzd wrote: I can't see how you could compare the too.

Rome was a CITY which conquered the world to become a huge succesfull empire.

America isa massive bit of land which is full of resources which was colonised by a huge Succsesfull empire. Became a large population, revolted and got independence. Then grew an grew fairly peacefully away from the dangers of the rest of the world until unleashing there power in WW2 when the powerfull countries had basically collapsed.

Brush up on your American history. We were a small colonial off-shoot of European powers. We had, relatively, the same lowly beginning as Rome. Also, we did not have a large population when we revolted. Your point is moot...

At 10/27/06 01:33 AM, Imperator wrote: Hey Mason, since you said you were in Korea (still in? I don't remember) for a while.

Here's MY solution to the North Korean and South Korean problems....

http://youtube.com/w..;search=korea%20bboy

Fuckin Breakdance battle suckah!!!!

Actually I need to update my profile; I'm back in the US...but you know I'm wishing I was back there...