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 Fall of the United States of America

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 10:45 AM

Originally posted by MatthewR1985
Thanks for the welcome. I have to go to class right now, but the topic of my theory-prediction is the obvious connection with the USA to the Roman Empire. I realize this has been discussed countless times, but I didn't know what to search for to find the other threads like it - plus its cooler when you create a thread

Well no nation lasts forever
. (I love the Romans).

[Edited on 25-4-2004 by AD5673]

posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 12:35 AM
Hopefully, since our class finally started studying the Romans, we will learn about the political collapse. Can't wait!

posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 04:44 AM
Matt, welcome from another newbie to this great website and discussion forum.

I agree with your concern for the "fall of the USA",
However I would like to dissagree with some of your assesments.

First, please try and keep an open mind. I hope your examining this theory in order to HELP the USA avoid a collapse, not to point the anti-USA finger. (there are both "patriots" and anti USA people here, but many of us are middle of the road overall)

Iraq is not Vietnam! Dont buy into this emotional play.

There is no superpower (China/Commie blok) backing iraq. There is no cold war balance of power in play here. (there is an ideological war however)

The total casualties on both sides of this conflict are no way even close to being similar. Also, our "kill ratio" in iraq is over 10-1...millitarily this is a huge success (#'s and tactically) than Nam was.

The home political environment and constraints on the millitary are not the same (yes some dissagreement/unhappieness, but where are all the hippies now?) There were political constraints put on the millitary in Nam, that today arent there.

Your statment about the diference between the vietcong and the jihadist also indicate that our enemy is far different than the one in Nam.

What is your definition of win?
I would like to think that Americans would start with a more "Can do" spirit, and not a we cant win attitude....we would never have beaten the Nazi's, walked on the moon or won the cold war with that kind of thinking.

I agree that this endeavour the USA has undertaken
Is large and complicated, indeed a true clear cut "win" is hard to define, let alone achieve. But something MUST be done...Innaction is not, and as weve seen with the 9-11 commission was not the best course for this problem.
What is being done is debatable, but not the need for something to be done. (Iraq is but one stop int he overall regional terror/instasbliity problem)

You mentioned our strategy making things worse....debatable, but i think in the long term will become better...i strongly dissagree that the jihadist's tactics will become more desperate....youve already got to be desperate to strap on a bomb and blow up civillians along with yourself. (This tactic is used by a weaker force attacking a superior one mostly for political gain, but you cant fight the enemy if your dead. This tactic is a waste of resources to wage war with in the long haul.)

Also dont forget that many of the resistors are not iraqi, but have come to keep iraq unstable and or create a civil war. Many iraqis would like to get stable and go back to living a more normal life.

Fighting a war there is better than fighting one here for sure!!! Tougher certantly, but better for our people, lands, resources ect.

The use of tactics change as the needs of the situation dictate...just because "tactical role reversal" seems to be occuring (from both sides) does not make the USA hypocritical....its mearly a sign of the times that we are not where we used to be, and they are. No wonder similar tactics are being used....tactics are tools and have been used thru time by others, we're not the first.

Dont forget that the President took office on the idea that the USA would be LESS involved in this kind of crap..(not a kick a-s-s attitude)..untill 9-11 dictated the Bush change his policy adgenda (and the US public attitudes changed to allow this kind of responce)...((i know conspiracy theorists are going "he orchestrated 9-11 for his adgenda"...stick to reality.))

I dont think we care what they believe as long as its not "kill the west" We are more into cleaning up situations and potential avenues to perpetuate this anti west and criminal terrorist adgenda.
Bush's adhearance to the June 30 deadline for starting iraqi self rule shows we're not into a long term "imperialistic" situation...The President understands we the people, while agitated now, have short attention spans..and wont be wild about a super long term thing (even if it may be nessisary)

The Election
Both Kerry and Bush have stated they will remain in Iraq and work to fight terror as long as nessisary...i wouldnt look for a pullout.

Speaking of pullouts...Spain...
Have you ever tried to appease a bully? What assurances do they have, or could a terrorist give them that they could believe, that there wont be another attack? Withdrawl (appeasment) will only result in terrorists being able to use resources elswhere until they think Spain will cave in to another threat....and why a time limit on this threat to spain? Because there will be another thing they (terrorists) will want in the future and they will know that Spain didnt have the will the first time, why not extort them again?

The USA spends the most $$ on the UN.
We helped CREATE it, We fund it THE MOST, and membership is not MANDITORY for any country. Any one may withdraw from the UN at any time.
Its pretty much a country club, the USA doesnt take orders from the UN, They take orders from us.

The UN can do what it wants, but i expect that our leaders in the USA will be looking out for the USA FIRST, never the UN.

As we see with Iraq, while the UN could have enforced its own mandates, it dint. Hence it is impotent. (now we see a hidden adgenda here as well, can you say OIL FOR FOOD FIASCO?) Why do we have to do something that they wont force us to do? That what saddam thought, thats what i think too, thats what the President basicaly told the UN...PUT up or SHUT up. If you dont, you lose your credibillity.

While other countries might eventually attempt to oppose us more forcably with sanction attempts (we'd veto in the UN), trade embargos, removal of diplomats ect...this would only isolate them from the HUGE money machine that is the USA. Where is their motive to really do more than complain, so what if we use a little muscle as long as they can still profit by dealings with us?

The collapse of the S.S. net does not mean the economy is collapsing, mearly one social (socialist) program...The USA is a huge chunk of the WORLD economy, and other nations would suffer along with us in an economic collapse.....noone desires this and all work (in their own ways/reasons) against this collapse.
Rome was not as integral to the world $$$ situation as the USA is...different market forces entirely.
Also, the USA has the resources and tech to continue supporting itself IF need be for a while at least..would it be fun, no, but do-able, yes.

* Fighting opponents that use unconventional/unknown tactics.

Try using that. (The USA knows about the tactics our enemy is using, they cant deal with our new ones...IE stealth, cruise, covert-ops, ect)

** MORALITY of weapon use.

There is no doubght that use of atomic weapons is horrific. Its supposed to be.
killing is killing is killing, dead is dead.
hands, rock, knife, pistol, tank, missile, nuke..these are all weapons. By their nature, they are all horrific if used for their purpose. Is being beaten to death more or less humane than being killed in seconds? There is no right answer as death of the person is the end result. It dosnt matter how death comes. The USA has formally appologized to Japan for this act.

During WWII, many countries were enguaged in wide spread fire bombing of cities, usually at night......Why? Both to demoralize the population as well as to hit PRODUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE that was keeping the enimies war effort going.

Indeed there was probable truely "innocent" people at both nuke attacks, but....
were there weapon production plants? food distrubution? Sea ports? rail points? Fuel depots? ect?

While the people working making planes, guns, ammo, packing and shipping food, medical, and supplies for their troops ect might not have been front line soldiers, they worked every day making things or doing jobs to support the war efort.

Brutal weapon? no doubght...but in the context of that conflict...effective...resulting in unconditional surrender of our enemy a very short time later. Is it wrong to have won the war?

I tried to go down your posting in order and ive given you a lot to sort thru here. Glad i was the first to put in my 2 cents. I hope you got something you were looking for here.

Again welcome, it only gets messy from here on out on this site...LOL The friendly welcome will wear off soon enough. Dont hold back, hit me hard with your counter points...We love a good debate.

posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 04:08 PM
First of all, I want to thank you for a warm welcome and a wonderful post for me to counter. You brought up many good points! So, here goes:

You're right, Vietnam is NOT like Iraq for the reasons you listed, but aren't the Democrats against the war (or rather against Bush who supports the war)? I'm not trying to compare liberal Democrats to hippies (although it's not that hard to make the connection
), but there ARE two schools of thought on the war: right or wrong.

My definition of win is complete economic, political, AND EMOTIONAL change. All we are going to see in Iraq is economic, and political change. The Middle-Eastern peoples' (not limited to Iraq) beliefs and emotions will not change - infact, toppling a Jihadist-Islamic anti-West country like Iraq will only motivate others to pick up where the Baath party left off. People that once were indifferent about the US, will be angered by the arrogant imperialist attitude the US shows, and will start making choices. Choices that will get people killed. We are only creating more motive for the terrorists every time a Baath party member OR a pro-US citizen is killed. It's a viscious, never ending cycle. Strapping a bomb to oneself is desperate to Western minds, but to them (the Jihadists), its a part of their purpose in life - its more than a purpose, it's an HONOR. An HONOR to Allah. In short, we are doing exactly what they want us to do, which is exactly what sets them off (no pun intended). A very dangerous culture.

While you are correct SS is only a failed PART of the US economy, I used it as an example becasue I couldn't think of anything else and because it pretty much sums up what's happeneing right now. And about Rome, the Roman empire (at its zenith) WAS the world. Then again, the 'world' was thought of as the area around the Mediterranean and parts of Europe, so, technically, Rome was an integral part of the 'world' economy.

As for the rest of your post, I can't argue. It's all true. And thanks for the suggestions by the way.

[Edited on 28-4-2004 by xenophanes85]

posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 11:05 AM
Moral colapse, the mid-drift bellies and simulated sex at every turn. America is in the midst of a great moral colapse, and not only on the sexual front. Rooting for death and destruction "BOMB THE F&*KERS" etc. Are they for real?

Monetary colapse, with the dirivites market hovering in the trillions, money made out of thin air, and the asian holding most of it. America is just waiting for a strong breeze from the east to topple it over here aswell.

Social colapse, America is quickly approaching or had passed the ratio of worker to master wages that usually indicate a revolution is in the wings.

And Balkinization of the states. How many Mexicans can the South West us hold until they just change the flag there as well? ILLEGIAL immigrants, stop em before they stop U

[Edited on 30-4-2004 by Thanatos]

posted on May, 1 2004 @ 09:25 AM
The collapse of the American empire is the least of humanity's worries. The rapid industrialization of China and India adding to our already compromised atmosphere, Population estimates of some 9 billion persons within the next 50 years(some estimates put the time table as much shorter), proliferation of modified genetic food strains(who's implications have only begun to be seen), and inevitable climate change will all combine to spell the eventual demise of humanity as the dominant species on this planet.

Of course it is arrogant of people to speak of the destruction of the planet, we haven't the capacity to do anything more than ruin the ecosphere for our own uses. I'm sure that rats and cockroaches will do just fine feeding off the decaying corpses of humanity.

posted on May, 1 2004 @ 12:35 PM
Awww, how lovely! I love an optimist! LOL, you are right scott. I hope I die before all the REAL problems start happening. But I also want a long life so I can enjoy what MY parents got to have. IF the world ends in the non-violent way you described, it will be really unfair that people around my age didn't get to enjoy it. Sigh.

[Edited on 5-1-04 by xenophanes85]

posted on May, 1 2004 @ 01:23 PM
LaChaim! To life! I share in your desire for long life. Perhaps if more people subscribed to your philosophy, the world would be a better place. I can't help but come to the conclusion however that there is a definitive "human nature" and that nature is visious self-interest. People rarely think about the future as much as the present. Living solely in the now rarely leads to a benevolent later. Governments and religions were created with the purpose of controling people in the hope of benefiting the general utility of the group, definately not the same objective of the individual.

posted on May, 1 2004 @ 02:46 PM
just for laughs do you know what the projected casualties were for a mainland assault of Japan?
in the millions, on both sides
there was no quicker or *cleaner* method to end the war than to drop "the bomb"
the firebombing of Tokyo actually caused more damage too lol

[Edited on 1/5/2004 by aldsar]

posted on May, 1 2004 @ 03:14 PM
The American army estimated that an assault on mainland Japan would result in the deaths or casualties of around 250000 men.

They knew that the Japanese would fight to the last man to protect their homeland.Due to the expected level of resistance and forecasted combat losses this led to the dropping of the first atomic weapons.

posted on May, 1 2004 @ 03:34 PM
somewhere i read the projected numbers were much higher.
ill get the book right now and give you the pages even.
its called Navy Seals by Kevin Dockery.
on page 94, this is a direct quote, and the projected U.S. casualties alone for that operation [invasion of Japan] were over one million.

just a bit of info for you guys there

[Edited on 1/5/2004 by aldsar]

posted on May, 1 2004 @ 04:05 PM
The assertion was made that we should pull out of Iraq. Idealistically, that is the option that probably appeals to most people with confilicting views on the subject.
It is also the option that if chosen will spell our death as a nation. What better way to weaken world opinion? What better way to show the true nature of U.S. resolution and the weakness of its people's stomachs?
Its a bad situation. It is not in everyones best interest to perpetuate our involvement. But even though the cost may be high, we have to stay the course. Remember, we lost 400,000 people in WWII. The American people have to bow up and take a few losses. I spent some time over there and lost some comrades. I hated it. I don't like the situation one bit. Nor do I think we can stabilize the Middle East, but I do think we have the chance to improve the state of things in Iraq. The political infighting must be stopped in order to achieve that goal, however. And if we go back on our word as a nation as we have done too many times, we surely are in a downward spiral as far as our geopolitical influence and national security are concerned.

posted on May, 1 2004 @ 04:24 PM
I said this in another topic:

If we leave now, we leave them in a worse state then they have ever been, we will show the world terrorism won, and the extremist Muslims will hate us even more. If we stick it out, we will make it even worse, they will hate us more and more the longer we are there, and we will show terrrorism wins. A lose-lose situation, a hole the US just keeps on digging in.

Why does terrorism win in both cases? Becasue who the terrorists are is relative to the person being terrrorized. To us, they are the terrorists. To them, WE are the terrorists. War is a form of terror.

posted on May, 1 2004 @ 11:00 PM

Originally posted by confoundit
we surely are in a downward spiral as far as our geopolitical influence and national security are concerned.

I couldn't agree with you more!

Xeno is absolutely correct in pointing out the lose/lose nature of the situation. I also agree with Xeno's issue of perspective on just who the terrorists are.

When we get right down to the crux of the biscuit, it is the policies of our government twords the Islamic governments and peoples, our support of Isreal, our arrogance, and our exploitation that bring us the "attention" of the "terrorists."

Why should any of the Arab peoples trust the historic infidel crusaders who have repetedly tried to force our influance innumerable times over the past thousand years and more?

I am not a supporter of the Arab people per se., I am a non-practicing jew. But I realize the close genetic ties between my fellow "Sand Niggers" and myself. Drawing an invisible line in the sand over millinia old disputes over essoteric religious issues, is beyond understanding. Just because it is outside the reach of understanding doesn't mean I am doomed to try. Thousands of years of documented history teach that the various peoples of the middle east will never live together in peace.

To top it all off: It is the stated doctrine of the powers that be, The Evangelical Christian Right, that "The Jews" must be in power in Judea when "The Rapture" comes! An inspiring thought when you hear Dubya actually use the word "Crusade" at the beginning of our current involvement.

posted on May, 3 2004 @ 01:01 AM
I'm glad to see someone of another religion and ethnicity (assuming you are of Middle-Eastern descent) agree with my truth. Arrogant as that sounds, it IS a lose/lose situation. Sure we may eventually have complete control over the government of Iraq, but we will NEVER change their minds about the West. The ones that hate us now, will hate us even more, and the ones that are indifferent towards us will learn to hate us and our arrogant, bully attitude. I'm of the correct military age, the filet mignon of the draft pool (19 tomorrow), and I think I wanna leave the US before I'm forced into fighing a war I don't believe in. This is a war with a flawed, hypocritical cause, and I don't want to be forced into fighting to try to change thousands of years of tradition, forced into killing a fellow (hu)man, different as our cultures may be, and forced into a suicide mission with possible death at every window, town, corner, convoy, checkpoint, etc. There are no true front lines in this war and there are no places or times where the troops are truly safe from attack - every square inch of ground there is fair game. Somebody get me, the people I love, and the people who share my opinon, out of this failing nation before its too late.


[Edited on 5-3-04 by xenophanes85]

posted on May, 3 2004 @ 01:59 AM
War is not terrorism...terrorism is a tactic...
WAR is the extension of diplomacy....or the result of failed diplomacy. Without the threat of "war", where does diplomacy get its authority? What is the thing that enforces a treaty, or a national boarder? What gives a nation any kind of soveringty? The threat to make war in order to enforce its diplmoatic stance.

I cant disagree more with both Xeno and scott2

First, SCOTT2....way to only post HALF of a quote and twist it to fit your about out of context
heres the full quote
"And if we go back on our word as a nation as we have done too many times, we surely are in a downward spiral as far as our geopolitical influence and national security are concerned. "
the ommission by you of the first 1/2 of that sentence changes the whole meaning of it now doesnt it?

Why are there only lose lose as possible outcomes?
While unlikley, other outcomes do exist, and taking a stance based on just one or two outcomes (and neither of them are the desired ones) will only help you get those as a result (self fufilling prophesy??)

We could leave and the iraqi's might actually be able to handle it..(not likley but a possibillity)

we could leave and some form between total chaos and them handeling it manifests...(where on the scale would this fall vs where would we like it to be)

We could stay, and iraq actually becomes more stable once insurgency is quelled. (why no one ever picks this as an option?)

We could stay and things might stay about the same and not get too much worse... (i think we've seen about the MAX resistance were gonna see in iraq)

The lie that staying is going to make them hate us more is soo hollow, You've already got to hate someone to the MAX to strap on a bomb and blow yourself up!!! How much more hateful can you get?
This hate has been against us and building for over 20 years now, i say lets give them a place over there to come and get a piece of our millitary, rather than let them sneak over here for secret bombings...of civillians.

If that counts as making "more" terrorists is debatable, i feel we've just chosen the time and place and are drawing them out from hiding..."heres the big target..come and get it if you think you can!!!"
Better this takes place there than here. Better on our timeline than a suprise attacklike 9-11.

trying to inflame the idea by calling things a crusade isnt even close to accurate....if we wanated a crusade, we'd have closed all the islam things here first, then waged war indiscrimantly to raze/eliminate all iraqi's or arab targets....we have done no such thing.

SCOTT2 says;
"Thousands of years of documented history teach that the various peoples of the middle east will never live together in peace. "
History is a guide not a garuntee...
Mabey people can learn and change (or be forced to)

If this were true then all the more reason to be warring now....lets get the shooting over with over there so a more peaceful solution arises. sooner than later....
honestly, just let the grieving parties fight it out till only one remains, then things will be more peaceful.
Oh yeah, i forgot, thats the option for if we pull out...

"I dont believe in the no win scenario."
Capt James T. Kirk

posted on May, 3 2004 @ 02:12 AM
Very good work here Matthew, i would also like to point out though the similarities the Old British Empire has with both the Roman and Current USA empire are very similar to those you have pointed out... just thought i'd add some more historical sway to you point...

posted on May, 3 2004 @ 09:44 AM
Come on now Caz, of course there are more than two possible senarios. However, my assertion implies that the end result will be the same, and it will not be favorable to America's interests. I also assert that we are incapable of learning from history. Unfortunately, I have to reassert this hypothesis. People do NOT learn from history, espesially when it comes to politics. Calm study and introspection are rarely halmarks of political bodies. Sure, deliberations seam to grind away at glacial pace, but that hardly means that is because of careful thought, rather; infighting, filibuster, and adding and or deleting pork. Besides the fact that human wants, needs and desires have not changed one iota in the course of human history.

Well within the realm of living memory are the facts of how Iraq, Iran and their neighbors were divided up by the League of Nations, not along political or secular lines understood by the populus but along unestablished demarkations more suitable to the west. Great Britain was mired in occupation for thirty years before finally handing those reigns over to us. Persia, Babylon, and Palestine may be ancient names but until very recently, they were still definitive nations.

PNAC types such as Wolfowitz, Rummy, Cheany, Caz, have this plan that by occupying one spot in the Mid East and asserting OUR way that other nations will necesarily fall into line. Didn't work for the Brits, didn't work for the Romans, and it won't work for the USA.

I've said this before: Maybe the "Christian" thing to do is to Lead By Example and Folllow the Golden Rule, both as individuals and as a Nation. The assertion has been made that by doing nothing, that we invite another 9/11. BOLDERDASH!!!!! We weren't doing "nothing" prior to 9/11, we were busy pissing off radical Islam. How? By having occupying forces in Saudi Arabia specifically. By supporting Isreal over it's neighbors.

Either of these two "actions" are not by nature immoral or unethical, until you change perspective. Am I a proponent of Isolationism? Yes, to a point. Even-handedness has never been a halmark of American diplomacy. The hipocracy of our foreign policy has revealed it's transparancy to the very fringe that is most likely to react poorly to it.

posted on May, 3 2004 @ 10:30 PM
Many interesting and diverse opinions have been brought up. Thanks for not turning this into a flame war guys (and girls ?).
So, after Thanatos' and CazMedia's suggestions, the list is as follows:

  1. Government Corruption
  2. Military Action

    1. Effect: Division of the involved nations' people.
    2. Fighting opponents that use unconventional/unknown tactics.
    3. Effect: Opposition by other countries not involved, directly involved, and indirectly involved.

  3. Economic Collapse (Monetary Collapse)
  4. Division
  5. Moral Collapse
  6. Social Collapse
  7. Balkinization

I think this thread has slowly left the comparison of the US to Rome idea (although it still stands). Oh, BTW, I am MatthewR1985.

[Edited on 5/3/04 by xenophanes85]

posted on May, 4 2004 @ 05:17 PM
you know whats going on in the world?
we're gonna pull out of iraq on june 30 because the UN whined to us about it.
then when the terrorists descend on it and start blowin each other up and the UN complains that we should do something, Bush is just gonna go, "you guys wanted it, you got it. It's your problem now."
and wash his hands of it.
could it get anybetter?
we pull out and stop losing guys,
the terrorists have nothing to use against us because we stuck to our word, AND they still blow each other up and when it gets out of hand, we'll have no reason to go in there and the eurocrats will HAVE to get involved.

i dont know about you guys but this sounds like a plan to me.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in