It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


the roman and american empires

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 04:38 PM
I love Canada as a neighbor. In the sense of soldiers they didn't support us in the war, but they have long stood by the US as a partner and ally. Our economies greatly benefit each other. I understand that Iraq was a touchy decision for almost all countries, and respect the decisions of some of our great allies who decided not to support militarily. My self i don't always agree that our administration makes the best decisions, but most governments know that the conflicts in the middle east cause greif in the world year after year costing other nations lives, time, and cash. This has been an ongoing theme for decades.
As simple thought to some of those here. Its just not plausable for people in other countries or our own to automatically label the US as a conquering empire going around slaughtering countries. If we were attacking countries and occupying countries that are clean good working nations, i would agree that the US needs to cool it. Don't get me wrong.....the US should not involve itself in anything and everything. But these nations have governments that are known by most countries in the world for supporting terror, and involving themselves in no-good in the world. The countries that have the capabilities to make change in the world sat and let this go on for too long until millions of lives have been lost. Do some of you really think that the US is so bad for trying to do somthing about this?....even after our trade centers were destroyed along with alot of, mommies, and daddies, uncles, brothers, and sisters being slaughtered while simply trying to work at their desk to support their families?

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 05:15 PM

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by bunkbuster

What if you were to replace the word "own" with the word "control"?

Then you'd've removed any meaning of 'empire' to it. Empires own.

I guess I see the US Government, the United Nations, and affiliated round table think tanks functioning more like a board of directors in control of what appears from a "shareholder" position to be a "public" company.

From my understanding, empires have kings or emperors, and empires do not hold elections, do they? Perhaps I'm wrong, but I assume when we talk of the American Empire, we're already making a leap of assumption that the United States is being run like an empire and does not actually call itself an empire, but rather claims to be a democratic republic.

I think if we were to really research the legal ramifications of a debt money system, we might be very surprised to find out who actually owns whom, but that's another topic.

Regardless of the semantics we employ, are we not talking about the actions and decisions made by the few people at the top of the social pyramid that affect the lives of the many people below who must endure the consequences? I don't care what we call them, so long as we recognize about whom we are talking. For the purposes of this discussion, I am fine with calling them The Dudes that control the military industrial complex of the Western Empire .

What do you generally call them?

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 07:43 PM

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
The day we start listening to predictions from Nick Carter or any Boy band thats when it really is over.

Bye Bye Bye(Bye Bye)
I can post the lyrics if you DON'T believe me!

new topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in