Rest In Peace, President Bush

[lester1/2jr]

they are two different things.

[Alex]

And yet Rome managed to be both, as does the USA.

[Rev. Powell]

Bush's NWO was based on the idea that America shouldn't go it alone on foreign policy, but seek consensus and alliances to deal with international threats. A better paradigm than either isolationism or American hegemony, IMO. (Now, his son proved it could be abused...)

[Alex]

I'd agree with you there on all points Rev.

[lester1/2jr]

Rome proved the opposite

[indianasmith]

Back to the original topic, the sight of 95 year old Bob Dole struggling to stand so he could salute Bush41 moved me to tears today . . .

[Alex]

Rome proved the opposite

In what way? Until after Caeser it was a republic, by which time it had been an empire for quite some time (the republic part lasted from approximately 450 years, between the overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment of an emperor, which was around half the lifespan of the empire. Not to mention that several of the founding fathers themselves spoke of creating an empire. (for example:

For George Washington, the US was a "nascent empire." Thomas Jefferson thought that the Constitution of the United States was the perfect foundation on which an "extensive empire" could be built. For Alexander Hamilton, America was the "most interesting empire in the world." While a few argued that a western boundary ought to be set for the US, "the idea was thrown out" at the 1776 Constitutional Conference. What was later called Manifest Destiny would extend the Republic from sea to sea, disproving the theory that "a republic could be preserved only in a small territory." For Jefferson, the original 13 colonies were the "nest from which all America, North and South" would "be peopled." America was by "some way or other" to become "a great and mighty empire.

Just as a side note, ever wondered about the style of architecture of goverment buildings in Washington, or the name of the Senate?

An empire to me is defined by controlling a large land mass, generally taken by force from its native occupants to form a state (check). Characteristics include an ability to project power militarily (check), to a much greater degree than required to maintain it's own borders (check), sustained by a large trade network (check). It has a willingness to deploy force against nations that it feels are against it's interests, even when those countries present a minimal threat, be that on a major military scale, or through intelligence led actions.

I am genuinely interested to hear why you consider the US not to be an empire, although perhaps we should move the discussion to a seperate topic.

[Trevor]

Back to the original topic, the sight of 95 year old Bob Dole struggling to stand so he could salute Bush41 moved me to tears today . . .

That was incredibly sad and moving: also President Bush's service dog Sully lying by his boss's casket.

[lester1/2jr]

alex - where did you get that quote from? those are pretty cherry picked.

and yes I believe the US is NOW an empire but wasn't always. and will likely fall from similar ailments ( see the book of Revelation)

[RCMerchant]

alex - where did you get that quote from? those are pretty cherry picked.

and yes I believe the US is NOW an empire but wasn't always. and will likely fall from similar ailments ( see the book of Revelation)

The Book of Revelations? 
You gotta be kidding me.
May as well quote Nostrodamus.

[lester1/2jr]

the point being the empire is destined to fall, not that the book itself has predictive powers or something. I thought it would be more colorful than saying "we are drowning in debt, being overtaken by china as the worlds economic force and in the middle of ten different wars no one cares about"

[Alex]

That particular quote came from a debate, arguing that the US is a benevolent empire, and where it has inflicted harm, it has been an aberration, rather than the normal. If you are interested in that sort of thing, I'll see if I can find it again (to be honest I found it's arguments to be a bit one sided, since one person was making arguments for both sides and wasn't really making any serious attempt at being neutral). It's a subject I've been vaguely following since the mid to late 90's when a slew of books came out with titles like '"The Rise & Fall of the American Empire", and similar such things. I didn't agree at the time that it was an empire in decline, although the political infighting I've seen in the past decade is something traditionally seen before the fall of a great power and I'd be more inclined to accept it as a possibility now.

When a country spends more time fighting itself than it's enemies, it is in trouble (for example when Carthage refused to send Hannibal more troops when he was campaigning in Italy fearing if he victorious he would become powerful enough to take over the state, they signed their own death warrant as a entity, even if the death blow didn't fall until the third war between the two, Rome in its turn became embroiled in internal struggles and civil wars, combined with an increasingly incompetent aristocracy, more concerned with their own power than that of the country as a whole. The death blow may have came from outside, but ).

I find the whole thing to be very cyclic throughout history, countries rise, think they will last forever, fall and then rise again later on. Maybe it is now China's turn (although strategic analysis says that India has a strong chance of eclipsing China, after only a few years of China being the major power).

Personally I think China will overtake the US in certain area's but overall, short of losing a major war between the two nations, the US should remain as the dominant power between the two for a good while yet. Anyway, I am majorly wandering off topic here, so apologies Indy for hijacking your thread.

[justme2013]

I find the whole thing to be very cyclic throughout history, countries rise, think they will last forever, fall and then rise again later on. Maybe it is now China's turn (although strategic analysis says that India has a strong chance of eclipsing China, after only a few years of China being the major power).

Oddly enough this is something I studied in a religious course, the rise and fall of civilizations through their pride. If you're not familiar with it read up on the LDS Pride Cycle, I'll clarify anything you have questions on with it.

Civilizations will rise and fall it's inevitable, none will stay on the top for long due to human nature. History is full of examples of this.

But back to the original topic. George HW Bush was a statesman that will be missed.

[RCMerchant]

"Is America Gonna Fall?" has been going on for decades.
We had the Weather Underground, Patty Hearst, Vietnam, Watergate etc... in the 70's. Ain't much different.
The pollution in our major cities was worse. It was horrorfying. I could smell NYC before I could see it.
Riots in Watts, Detroit, kids getting shot on Ohio State campus. The U.S.S.R, s**t going down in the Middle East, terrorists at the Munich Olympic in '72 , s**t man.
When cops shot an unarmed man now-it's all over TV. It happened every f**king day in the 70's.
And I'm just talking about the 70's!

Oh yeah-back on topic. George Bush Sr. was a well read man, and had convictions. He wasn't in it for power or money. He was born into both. He was a Vet, he loved his wife and children, and he was kind to folks on the street.
He seemed like a very descent man.

[ER]

I find the whole thing to be very cyclic throughout history, countries rise, think they will last forever, fall and then rise again later on. Maybe it is now China's turn (although strategic analysis says that India has a strong chance of eclipsing China, after only a few years of China being the major power).

Oddly enough this is something I studied in a religious course, the rise and fall of civilizations through their pride. If you're not familiar with it read up on the LDS Pride Cycle, I'll clarify anything you have questions on with it.

Civilizations will rise and fall it's inevitable, none will stay on the top for long due to human nature. History is full of examples of this.

But back to the original topic. George HW Bush was a statesman that will be missed.

Interesting! You both have me thinking.

About GHWB I agree, as for the theory on the rise and fall of powers, I agree that this is true though offhand disagree about the Pride Cycle, with which I am not familiar.

I agree that there is a life cycle to all nations, cultures, and civilizations (except the Jews, who defy every supposed law Toynbee or his ilk ever created) but I can't agree that human pride is a significant factor.

If anything pride tends to sustain. Pride-based nationalism the hallmark of the First Turning, the high period within historical cycles. (We are in a late Third Turning right now in the US, I'd say.)

When Rome kept Roman citizenship exclusive and proudly valued it above all things, its power was on the ascendant. When Roman pride slipped to the point foreigners were welcomed into its borders with few to no limits and welfare was provided, there was a weakening of national identity that preceded the long collapse in the west. The eastern half, which sustained civic pride and did not deal with an invited influx of outsiders, fared better and lasted another thousand years in the form of the Byzantine Empire. The more open west dissolved.

Lesson? Diversity destroys, homogeneity of thought strengthens? Perhaps?

I'd say underrated factors in civilizations coming to an end tend toward being geographical and meteorological.

An example here within our own present-day national borders is the great Mesoamerican power center Cahokia, in what is now Illinois. From the 1000s AD through the late 1200s AD Cahokia was among the largest cities on the planet with thousands of villages and towns owing allegiance to it across the Mississippi and Ohio valleys. Its great earthen mound still stands and is larger than any Egyptian pyramid. To imagine the state that could build such a thing, by hand, without wheels or pack animals, awes me.

Yet this mega-empire seems to have fallen in the 1300s because a change in climate for the colder meant their long-depleted cornfields no longer thrived, crop failure increased, cheap available grains no longer filled the marketplaces and hungry people no longer stayed fed in the city center of 20,000.

Within a generation, as far as we can tell, this centuries-old culture saw its people return to the forests and again take on hunter-gatherer practices  as they had not in almost half a millennium. Its hemisphere-spanning trade networks fell apart, regionalism grew, discord and war rose (as the archaeological record shows) the greatness of Cahokia was forgotten even among the descendants of its citizens, by the time of European arrival in the 1600s becoming the stuff of campfire legend. (As I've said before, never undervalue myth and legend; they often contain truth.)

Did pride play a role there in Cahokia's fall? I don't know, but we can be sure climate did.

Weather, mismanagement of resources, these are major movers of peoples. Outsiders seeking resources press inward against the borders of great civilizations, precipitating collapse. Starving people are a challenge and several times almost undermined Rome long before it finally ended.

Although I'd be interested in reading more about the LDS hypothesis you mentioned, I can't see how the psychology of the people during the high/low points of a nation can be said to play the most important role when considered against larger factors. If Pride destroys, somebody better warn the gay community, eh?

China may be eternal, Jews may always wander, but I don't think the US is going to outlast even some children alive today, and we were prouder in times past, when we were greater.

Thanks you guys for a stimulating topic within a topic!