Thread: Iran

If we invade Iran...it will truly lead to the end of the world. There is no way in hell we can justify that and those people will NOT go easy, nor will the other Arab countries wait idly by as another of their own is turned to rubble. I pray for the good of humanity that we just shut the hell up and leave Iran alone.

I found this article, I thought it was kinda funny. And sad.

Hail Bush: A new Roman empire

They came, they saw, they conquered. Now the United States dominates the world. With the rise of the New Age Roman empire, Jonathan Freedland asks how long before the fall?

\"Sole superpower\" is accurate enough, but seems oddly modest. \"Hyperpower\" might appeal to the French; \"hegemon\" is favoured by academics. But empire is the big one, the gorilla of geopolitical designations - and suddenly the US is bearing its name.

Today a liberal dissenter such as Gore Vidal, who called his most recent collection of essays on the US The Last Empire, finds an ally in the likes of conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, who earlier this year told The New York Times, \"People are coming out of the closet on the word 'empire'.\" He argued that Americans should admit the truth and face up to their responsibilities as the undisputed masters of the world. And it wasn't any old empire he had in mind. \"The fact is, no country has been as dominant culturally, economically, technologically and militarily in the history of the world since the Roman empire.\"

But is the comparison apt? Are the Americans the new Romans?

The most obvious similarity is overwhelming military strength. Rome was the superpower of its day, boasting an army with the best training, biggest budgets and finest equipment the world had seen. No-one else came close. The US is just as dominant - its defence budget will soon be bigger than the military spending of the next nine countries combined, allowing it to deploy forces almost anywhere on the planet at lightning speed. Throw in its technological lead, and the US emerges as a power without rival.


There is a big difference, of course. Apart from the odd Puerto Rico or Guam, the US does not have formal colonies, the way the Romans did. There are no American consuls or viceroys directly ruling faraway lands.

But that difference between ancient Rome and modern Washington may be less significant than it looks. After all, America has done plenty of conquering and colonising. For some historians, the founding of America and its 19th-century push westward were no less an exercise in empire building than Rome's drive to take charge of the Mediterranean. While Julius Caesar took on the Gauls - bragging that he had slaughtered a million of them - American pioneers battled the Cherokee, the Iroquois and the Sioux.

\"From the time the first settlers arrived in Virginia from England and started moving westward, this was an imperial nation, a conquering nation,\" says Paul Kennedy, author of The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.

More to the point, the US has military bases, or base rights, in some 40 countries - giving it the same global muscle it would enjoy if it ruled those countries directly. According to Chalmers Johnson, author of Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, these US military bases are today's version of the imperial colonies of old. Washington may refer to them as \"forward deployment\", says Johnson, but colonies are what they are. On this definition, there is almost no place outside America's reach.

So the US may be more Roman than we realise, with garrisons in every corner of the globe. But there the similarities only begin. For the US approach to empire looks quintessentially Roman. It's as if the Romans bequeathed a blueprint for how imperial business should be done - and today's Americans follow it religiously.

Lesson one in the Roman handbook for imperial success would be a realisation that it is not enough to have great military strength: the rest of the world must know that strength - and fear it. The Romans used the propaganda technique of their time - gladiatorial games in the Colosseum - to show the world how hard they were. Today 24-hour news coverage of US military operations, including video footage of smart bombs scoring direct hits, or Hollywood shoot-'em-ups at the multiplex serve the same function. Both tell the world: this empire is too tough to beat.

The US has learned a second lesson from Rome, realising the centrality of technology. For the Romans, it was those famously straight roads, enabling the empire to move troops or supplies at awesome speeds - rates that would not be surpassed for well over a thousand years. It was a perfect example of how one imperial strength tends to feed another: an innovation in engineering, originally designed for military use, went on to boost Rome commercially.

Today those highways find their counterpart in the information superhighway: the Internet also began as a military tool, devised by the US Defence Department, and now stands at the heart of American commerce. In the process, it is making English the Latin of its day - a language spoken across the globe. The US is proving what the Romans already knew: that once an empire is a world leader in one sphere, it soon dominates in every other.

But it is not just specific tips that the US seems to have picked up from its ancient forebears. Rather, it is the fundamental approach to empire that echoes so loudly. Rome understood that, if it was to last, a world power needed to practise both hard imperialism, the business of winning wars and invading lands, and soft imperialism, the cultural and political tricks that worked not to win power but to keep it.

So Rome's greatest conquests came not at the end of a spear, but through its power to seduce conquered peoples. As Tacitus observed in Britain, the natives seemed to like togas, baths and central heating - never realising that these were the symbols of their \"enslavement\".

Today the US offers the people of the world a similarly coherent cultural package, a cluster of goodies that remain reassuringly uniform. It's not togas or gladiatorial games today, but Starbucks, Coca-Cola, McDonald's and Disney, all paid for in the contemporary equivalent of Roman coinage, the global hard currency of the 21st century: the dollar.

When the process works, you don't even have to resort to direct force; it is possible to rule by remote control, using friendly client states. This is a favourite technique for the contemporary US - no need for colonies when you have the Shah in Iran or Pinochet in Chile to do the job for you - but the Romans got there first. They ruled by proxy whenever they could. The English know all about it.

One of the most loyal of client kings, Togidubnus, ruled in the southern England of the first century AD.

Togidubnus did not let his masters down. When Boadicea led her uprising against the Roman occupation in AD60, she made great advances in Colchester, St Albans and London - but not Sussex. Historians now think that was because Togidubnus kept the native Britons under him in line. Just as Hosni Mubarak and Pervez Musharraf have kept the lid on anti-American feeling in Egypt and Pakistan, Togidubnus did the job for Rome nearly two millennia ago.

Not that it always worked. Rebellions against the empire were a permanent fixture, with barbarians constantly pressing at the borders. Some accounts suggest that the rebels were not always fundamentally anti-Roman; they merely wanted to share in the privileges and affluence of Roman life. If that has a familiar ring, consider this: several of the enemies who rose up against Rome are thought to have been men previously nurtured by the empire to serve as pliant allies. Need one mention former US protege Saddam Hussein or one-time CIA trainee Osama bin Laden?

Rome even had its own 9/11 moment. In the 80s BC, Hellenistic king Mithridates called on his followers to kill all Roman citizens in their midst, naming a specific day for the slaughter.

They heeded the call and killed 80,000 Romans in local communities across Greece. \"The Romans were incredibly shocked by this,\" says the ancient historian Jeremy Paterson, of Newcastle University, England. \"It's a little bit like the statements in so many of the American newspapers since September 11: 'Why are we hated so much?\"'

Internally, too, today's US would strike many Romans as familiar terrain. America's mythologising of its past - its casting of founding fathers Washington and Jefferson as heroic titans, its folk-tale rendering of the Boston Tea Party and the war of independence - is very Roman.

That empire, too, felt the need to create a mythic past, starred with heroes. For them it was Aeneas and the founding of Rome, but the urge was the same: to show that the great nation was no accident, but the fruit of manifest destiny.

There are some large differences between the two empires, of course - starting with self-image. Romans revelled in their status as masters of the known world, but few Americans would be as ready to brag of their own imperialism. Most would deny it. But that may come down to the US's founding myth. For America was established as a rebellion against empire, in the name of freedom and self-government. Raised to see themselves as a rebel nation and plucky underdog, they cannot quite accept their current role as master.


\"What America will need to consider in the next 10 or 15 years,\" says the Cambridge classicist Christopher Kelly, \"is what is the optimum size for a non-territorial empire, how interventionist will it be outside its borders, what degree of control will it wish to exercise, how directly, how much through local elites? These were all questions which pressed upon the Roman empire.\"

Anti-Americans like to believe that an operation in Iraq might be proof that the US is succumbing to the temptation that ate away at Rome: overstretch. But it's just as possible that the US is merely moving into what was the second phase of Rome's imperial history, when it grew frustrated with indirect rule through allies and decided to do the job itself. Which is it?

Is the US at the end of its imperial journey, or on the brink of its most ambitious voyage? Only the historians of the future can tell us that.
[/b]

Funny article there. The only real similarities between the US and Rome are that they were the dominant nations at some point. Otherwise, right now Iraq would be considered a colony and part of our territory, and we'd be demanding tribute from dozens of countries in return for sparing them from out military.

ye, interresting article u got there lucidnina. the question is how long they can keep their domination. china is growing and so is eu which maybe willl get its own military in the future. hoepfully that will bring some sort of balance in the global power...

Or war.

Originally posted by he
The only real similarities between the US and Rome are that they were the dominant nations at some point.

If you read into it too much and try to compare it at a fact to fact level yes. The idea is more... hmm metaphorical isn't the word I'm looking for but... it's just meant to be a historical comparison. They are very much alike... the romans thought they were unstoppable. Bush... thinks... he's unstoppable.

The question begging to be answered, is considering the differences -- technological advances, the fact that we're much more skilled at killing eachother now a days, and have far less morals -- does the old adage of what goes up must come down really apply?

The only way anybody has a chance of stopping the states at this point if they declared against everybody, would be for everybody else to band together against them. A grand theme, but look at us? We can barely get along with our neighbours half the time. Is it really possible? Would it take such a thing to really finally unite the world and bring about some truth to what chardin said, "The time of nations is over. The time to start building the earth is here"

We already sold tibet billions of dollars in weapons, china will be preoccupied for awhile.

Gawd. We have Bush for 4 more years, we're all screwed. Hell with the US. I'm moving to Canada!

You'll like it up here. There's a severe shortage of republicans.

Originally posted by incognito
You'll like it up here. There's a severe shortage of republicans.

Thank gawd.

You don't think that in the coming years of the oil shortages Canada won't be 'forcibly annexed' too? They may even comply if in some case they Chinese were to, say, invade Alaska. You can't escape if America goes to hell. The reason is if America goes to hell it's gonna take everyone with it.... After the fall of the Roman Empire the world regressed into the ages before the Greek culture, a new dark age, although it was odd because we took two steps backwards and ten steps forward, it might be the same if the American Federal Empire does too.

I just can't help but feel like an ant trying to avoid being squashed by hordes of warring gaints. I don't care about Iran, I don't care if they have nukes that can threaten Israel, Europe, or even America! I don't want to be taxed, I don't want to fight, I don't want to move to canada(the socialist hell hole that it is), I don't want "free" protection, schools, or health care. I just want to be left alone by these warring giants, they all look the same to me, all equally undesireable, but inescapeable.

Is it too much to ask to not be forced to do things against my will?

Most of you will say no, but I know you all have these grand plans to run the world, these grand schemes, great priorities, and epic projects that we MUST undertake, that we MUST merge our efforts into, and if people don't want to, it's a small price to make them when you're spending others' resources.

Since when do you have the right to force your will on anyone? Since when does any man? This right can not be derived from a majority of a given population, even if it is the direct will of that majority. It can not be derived from any god. It can definitely not be derived from necessity.

Why can't we just leave each other to our own buissness?

EU which maybe will get its own military in the future[/b]

I don't this will be too soon. Several of the EU countries have been banned. It also seems that Europians, are very anti-war. I think this comes from a very bad experience from two world wars.

Really it is fear that holds the human race together. People don't want to go to war. There are only a few nuts that want to go to war, or disrupt the peace.

I don't think America is that much of a super power. We asume they could easily bomb any country they like at a press of a button. However, this isn't so true. For example, the china goverment virtually supresses it's people, similar to how Saddam supressed his. China has nuclear powers and could be considered just as dangerous as Iraq, if not much more dangerous.

So why not go for China? Free it's people etc. Because it is very powerful, and would not leave America untouched if the American goverment decided to attack it.

As for planning to attack Iran for creating nuclear weapons. I think this is unfair. Certainly, if France got attacked by anyone, Britian would start creating nukes for defence. Although, the Irani goverement's actions are questionnable.

If the American goverment continues to behave the way it does then it is no more trustworthy than the Irany goverment. I might expect the American's to protest if it's goverment decided to go to war with Iran.

Originally posted by incognito+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(incognito)</div>

the fact that we're much more skilled at killing eachother now a days, and have far less morals[/b]

Less morals...hmm...slavery, giant orgies, special rooms to throw up in during feasts so that more food can be consumed, killing slaves for fun, watching people being killed for entertainment...etc. Those were common practices in Roman times, how can you say less morals? If anything, the level of skill at which we can kill each other shows higher morals. We spend millinos of dollars so those missiles hit the exact targets that they are supposed to. That a bit more moral than burning down an entire village...wouldn't you agree?

<!--QuoteBegin-Belisarius
I just can't help but feel like an ant trying to avoid being squashed by hordes of warring gaints. I don't care about Iran, I don't care if they have nukes that can threaten Israel, Europe, or even America! I don't want to be taxed, I don't want to fight, I don't want to move to canada(the socialist hell hole that it is), I don't want \"free\" protection, schools, or health care. I just want to be left alone by these warring giants, they all look the same to me, all equally undesireable, but inescapeable.

Wow, I think that is officially the most hypocritical statement I've ever read in my entire life.

I'm not sure about you guys, but I find it hard to believe that even George Bush or whoever the hell it is makes these decisions to go to battle, is stupid enough to just walk into an enormous war like that. I mean, if it's blatantly obvious to people like us that aren't even politicans, then somebody who is versed in being a politican should just see it there in their face - go to Iran, cause hell. Or perhaps they've got an secret weapon that is a surefire way to just win? Possible, I suppose.

8) [size=24]Listen to Bill Hicks 8)

The world today has been overrun by vermin. Just as it was during Rome, Babylon, Egypt, China, Japan, Germany, Russia, etc...
It's an endless cycle of BS until enough people wake up and see it.

Great article lucidnina

slavery, giant orgies, special rooms to throw up in during feasts so that more food can be consumed, killing slaves for fun, watching people being killed for entertainment[/b]

Hmmm...I don't think those are all things of the past...under different forms today but still around. As for Iran, its heating up and I agree with Lucidnina, we're heading for disaster. After Iran, Syria and then...but on that thought, the Arab world will certainly react, but the question is, what can they do??? Their govs are corrupt and in bed with the Americans for the most part (Jordan, Saudi, in particular) and the street is powerless. We saw what could be done on 9-11 but that took years of planning and I don't think there is that possibility on a grander scale.

Originally posted by Loopy
As for Iran, its heating up and I agree with Lucidnina, we're heading for disaster. After Iran, Syria and then...but on that thought, the Arab world will certainly react, but the question is, what can they do??? Their govs are corrupt and in bed with the Americans for the most part (Jordan, Saudi, in particular) and the street is powerless. We saw what could be done on 9-11 but that took years of planning and I don't think there is that possibility on a grander scale.

Yeah but they'd still put up a hell of a fight and a shit load of people will end up dead. I also don't think the rest of the world would sit around and let the US do this...

Everyone hail the the New Holy Roman Empire.

Wow I'm hearing the same exact pessimism that I heard when the Iraqi war started. "The world will end!! The Arab world won't stand for it!! America is headed for disaster!!" Now look at Iraq. They have had their first ever free election. An evil tyrannical dictator is no longer in power (I know I know, some of you probably think that Saddam wasn't such a bad guy, I mean he only killed thousands of innocent people and gassed some of his own people). And about the whole American "empire". Come on people!!! Don't you have any common sense?!?! We went into Afghanistan because the Taliban supported the Al Qaida(sp?) terrorists, we went into Iraq because Saddam was a dangerous dictator who supported terrorism and killed his own people, and if we go into Iran it will be because they are a rogue nation that supports terrorism attempting to gain nuclear ability. Hello?!?! That means that terrorists could get nuclear weapons in their hands, and that becomes a threat to more than just the USA. It affects the whole world. And I am glad that we have a president who will do something about it (unlike the UN in its infinite wisdom).

Yet only this year, Bush has stopped supporting the IRA.

It's hard to believe there are people left in this day who don't know a smokescreen when they see one.

I agree, some people just can't seem to accept or come to terms with reality.

Just depends which reality they want to accept I suppose.

Merck , the UN tryed to stop the Iraq was purely because there was no PROOF of WMD.
The whole point of the UN is to try and stop wars!!!!! ( they still havent found a large amount of WMD) America in the last 100 years has not realy had a serious attck on her home soil apart from 9/11. If 9/11 had never happened America would not had attacked Iraq .
And believe me Bush is not realy bothered about human suffering otherwise why havent they attcked China over Tibet where many people were killed and the countless other contries where people are living in fear everyday.
there is a simile reason amoung many why Bush has attcked Afghanistan , Iraq and soon probably Iran. There is a new Cold War situation buiding up . Whith Putin an ex KGB spy in power over Russia alredy ignoring democracy by appointing his own officals and with China's economy expanding soo fast it will be larger than america in 10 years. America needs bases and influence in the East and is trying to hold on their grips as a superpower.

The biggest mistake that the USA made when invading Iraq was to not wait, unless they new somwthing we don't, for the backing of the UN. Had The USA had that and proof of WMD's there would not be so many who disaprove.

As far as Iran, much like iraq they do not head any warnings. So far the USA has taken a lesser role in this. As Great Britian and France are trying to negotiate peace talks. But again Iran insists on and even instigates propeganda to add fuel to the fire. Maybe they feel theatened, maybe they should. But either way they have blatenly went against the treaty from WWII and have clarified they will proceed in making nuclear capabilities beyond that of a nuclear energy source.
I feel the should Iran should be brought up to the UN security council and sanctions should be decarled.

Originally posted by Belisarius
Why can't we just leave each other to our own buissness?

Wake up. Your dreaming. This is not a perfect world.
When it comes to Nuclear capabilties it is everyones business!

If we had a unified Unuited Nations that collectivley would simply not allow the use or desire to make nucleur weapons permissible then, other countries would follow siute.