NationStates Jolt Archive

In short (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12343), if you support endless war after endless war, aggression on a scale never previously envisioned, and the further growth of our empire-in-the-making, then by all means, vote for McCain.

Finally, a candidate that stands for my beliefs!

Personally, I prefer Huckabee. that may be because I lived in the state he ran for ten years, or it may be because he is an ordained minister. Whatever the reason, I respect McCain and am greatful for the sacrifices he has made for this country, but I really would rather not have him as president.

That said, I do not think that an "American Empire" is on the horizon. If it is, would it neccessarily be a bad thing. Ever heard of the Pax Romana? It was a period of about 200 years during which the known world had almost total peace. How was this phenomenon achieved you may ask. After all, we haven't seen two centuries of continious peace since, well since Rome fell. The answer is that it was achieved through the use of extremely brutal military, political, and social tactics that made waging war on the Roman Empire a losing proposition for all who tried it. In short, it was peace through superior firepower. If it came down to it, would you prefer a world where war is an almost constant occurence, or one in which the US held power through a large and effective military, effectively enforcing the peace throughout the world. Take your pick.

I, for one, welcome our Imperial Overlords.

Oh, wait, they've been here since the beginning of the 20th century...

And are probably here to stay. :(

I, for one, welcome our Imperial Overlords.

Oh, wait, they've been here since the beginning of the 20th century...

Personally, I prefer Huckabee. that may be because I lived in the state he ran for ten years, or it may be because he is an ordained minister. Whatever the reason, I respect McCain and am greatful for the sacrifices he has made for this country, but I really would rather not have him as president.

That said, I do not think that an "American Empire" is on the horizon. If it is, would it neccessarily be a bad thing. Ever heard of the Pax Romana? It was a period of about 200 years during which the known world had almost total peace. How was this phenomenon achieved you may ask. After all, we haven't seen two centuries of continious peace since, well since Rome fell. The answer is that it was achieved through the use of extremely brutal military, political, and social tactics that made waging war on the Roman Empire a losing proposition for all who tried it. In short, it was peace through superior firepower. If it came down to it, would you prefer a world where war is an almost constant occurence, or one in which the US held power through a large and effective military, effectively enforcing the peace throughout the world. Take your pick.

Peace cannot be maintained by force. Such is a false peace. Imperial domination will only lead to resentment and more war.

Peace cannot be maintained by force. Such is a false peace. Imperial domination will only lead to resentment and more war.

Actually, history is filled with peace being imposed and maintained by force. See World War II as a prime example. Admittedly, not every attempt to use force to maintain a peace actually achieves it, World War I and Vietnam are both examples of this (Korea can be argued both ways). nevertheless, peace can be achieved through superior firepower, for an extreme example, look at what the Mongolians did to Baghdad(did I spell that right?) the first time around or what Rome did to Syracuse. I disagree with that approach, but it is effective, if impractical.

Yes, there probably will be resentment, that is what led to the American Revolution in the first place! Will it lead to war, that cannot be known unless one can see the future, if you look at history the answer is a definite maybe. Sometimes it does and sometimes it does not.

Lastly, what is a "false peace"? Either there is peace or there is not. I am not saying that peace is simply the absence of war, but it can be defined to a fair degree of accuracy, please enlighten me as to what you mean by this.

Solitudinum Faciant; Pacem Apellant

Join the Army, it's killer. What's so bad about war anyway? What is war but a game? A deadly game with familiar settings and rules and rewards and dangers, something to win and something to lose. To have the greatest possible future that one can imagine in victory requires something completely disasterous if you're to lose. The point of war is simple enough, can anyone stay alive?

I love games because they tell us so much about ourselves. The play is the thing. It's a pity so many don't know the content of their libraries. Life is but a walking shadow, a poor player who struts and frets upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Join the Army, it's killer. What's so bad about war anyway? What is war but a game? A deadly game with familiar settings and rules and rewards and dangers, something to win and something to lose. To have the greatest possible future that one can imagine in victory requires something completely disasterous if you're to lose. The point of war is simple enough, can anyone stay alive?

I love games because they tell us so much about ourselves. The play is the thing. It's a pity so many don't know the content of their libraries. Life is but a walking shadow, a poor player who struts and frets upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Indeed although I think those anti-establishment 'artistes' - ABBA - put it better in their famous diatribe against the liberal mindset.

The gods may throw a dice, Their minds as cold as ice
And someone way down here, Loses someone dear
The winner takes it all, The loser has to fall
Its simple and its plain, Why should I complain.

Note the plain/plain rhyming in the last stanza - a damning indictment of the futility of life, raging against the petty, inconsequential details of the mind-numbing historic routine we play out day to day.

Or was it about love?

Who can tell?

I thought this was going to be about the Imperial Class Star Destroyer. :( Do carry on.

I thought this was going to be about the Imperial Class Star Destroyer. :( Do carry on.

lol, sorry to disappoint. ;)

I thought this was going to be about the Imperial Class Star Destroyer. :( Do carry on.
You mean that Epic Soap Opera? I mean, Space Opera? Well it wasn't really an opera because there was no signing, just iconic music. And it wasn't science fiction because it was about dueling wizards and had nothing to do with exploring humanity. And it was based on old serials. When you think about it the whole series really sucked and it's nothing short of astonishing that it has such a fandom today. I await my crucifixion on the lightsaber cross of the Force.

-snip-
Q in a blender. Thank you, John de Lancie!

Well, shoot, if we succeeded in expanding our empire, things would be a lot different. John McCain would be like Trajan or Marcus Aurelius.

But the 'other powers' can attack you from all sides... Even Rome can't stand up when it fighting at all horizons...

Ever heard of the Pax Romana? It was a period of about 200 years during which the known world had almost total peace.

lies.

also what is the American obsession with the Roman empire :confused:

Well, shoot, if we succeeded in expanding our empire, things would be a lot different. John McCain would be like Trajan or Marcus Aurelius.

or Queen Elizabeth I/I ;)