America's end is near.

Romes morals were pretty much consistent throughout it's ascendency and fall, the main factor was political corruption and an empire that had simply become too vast to adequately police. Going from a republic to an autocratic, Emperor ruled society is also considered by many to be a key factor, decisions made not for the good of the empire but for the whims of the elite.

Originally posted by FULCRUM

Originally posted by AlienS
The roman empire was made by conquering other countrys. this made it very vulnerable. America is made up of the 50 states of America. The states all wished to be a part of America, or were transfered legally (exept maybe Hawaii).

How about the Confederate States?

that wasnt legimate transformation.

Or was it?

i have no idea. i studyed american history last year, but i forgot about everything i learned. all i know is that if the confederate didn't attack on fort sumter, and the other fort, the confederate would probably still exist, since that was why the union attacked.

Bra-freaking-VO Skadi! Bravo!

Excellent post, probably one of the best I've seen describing the decline of the US.


jakomo

Originally posted by AlienS

Originally posted by FULCRUM

Originally posted by AlienS
The roman empire was made by conquering other countrys. this made it very vulnerable. America is made up of the 50 states of America. The states all wished to be a part of America, or were transfered legally (exept maybe Hawaii).

How about the Confederate States?

that wasnt legimate transformation.

Or was it?

i have no idea. i studyed american history last year, but i forgot about everything i learned.

all i know is that if the confederate didn't attack on fort sumter, and the other fort, the confederate would probably still exist, since that was why the union attacked.

As a matter of fact, it was. There was no "Civil War", but merely a civil police action.
The Confederacy has been maligned for the reasons for their attempted separation, but I suppose the victory writes the history, so be it. But what has not been made clear and evident is that the South did not properly do the paperwork. Because the documentation did not meet the standard according to the Laws of Nations, the actions of Abraham Lincoln was legal and correct. This tidbit comes from a Southerner. I am not concerned with thoughts or opinions but merely the facts and the truth.

The war between the north and the south was orchestrated by the british to destabilise the country,the northern manufacturers were fighting for the british during the revolutionary war,as were elements in the south.
They fought against america in the civil war because they knew that they would profit from doing business with the british selling their wares to them if they were allowed to do business contrary to the economic policies of the US government,which protected the US citizens from just the type of business practices that are used today,which by the way,in my opinion,this whole war on terror was fabricated to distract us from.

Thomas,

I asked.

I didnt say anything, cause i didnt know.. cause this really isnt a subject that intrests me.. it would if there would still be a Confederate, but there isnt..

But it is/was a civil war. No doubt about that.

[Edited on 16-9-2003 by FULCRUM]

Originally posted by FULCRUM
Thomas,

I asked.

I didnt say anything, cause i didnt know.. cause this really isnt a subject that intrests me.. it would if there would still be a Confederate, but there isnt..

But it is/was a civil war. No doubt about that.

[Edited on 16-9-2003 by FULCRUM]

No, that is incorrect. Looking at the evidence and understanding the definitions of words, "civil war" is not as accurate as "civil police action".
You say it might have interested you, were there a Confederacy at this time. The existence or nonexistence of the confederacy is immaterial to my interests. My interests should be evident in the last two posts by me in this thread. As a matter of fact, other than nonsensical mudslinging in the pit for fun, my interest should be quite evident in the general theme of most of my posts. It goes well beyond what little I learned in 7th grade history class in 1977, or any other history class taught in the American public education system which is driven by an agenda to create A and B honor roll students who know very little. The diferences in the meaning of terms, what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote this or that, what Abraham Lincoln's ultimate goal was and who thwarted his efforts and took his life, what was the agenda at Jekyll Island, what actually caused the Great Stock Market Crash, why do we use war script...so many questions, so little time, and what does it matter anyway as the majority of the population prefer to be stupid and sedate?

Wernt the confederates Anti-Federalists opposed to the federal control over state control over it's populations,

and the union wanted more federal control and less state independance?

First and foremost, Fulcrum, the USSR COULD NOT feed IT'S TROOPS much LESS its PEOPLE! Hardly the case here...

Skadi, while I'll AGREE with ALOT of what you say I simply REFUSE to agree with the statements like "we are ALL fat and LAZY" I have a 19 year old son who is KICKIN' IT in UNIVERSITY and he is NOT FAT! Nor are myself or Valhall FAT... NONE of my family is fat or LAZY!

We work our tails off and provide s living for MANY PEOPLE. Not just a living, but WEALTH when compared to alot of countries accross this globe!

Yes, back before I REFUSED to go to WalMart EVER AGAIN, I saw those of whom you speak... PITIFUL... That's the part I agree with you on... THere is a GREAT DEGREE of Slovenliness and Sloth in this country, granted, but those folks HOLD NO POWER (thank GOD!) they are the common equivilent to Serfs! The BIG difference between these people and the "Serfs of old" is these people CHOOSE their existence!

Thomas Crowne... RIGHT ON! You NAILED IT my fine sir...

PEACE...
m...



[Edited on 9-17-2003 by Springer]

Originally posted by Springer
Nor are myself or Valhall FAT

While there is a major problem with obesity in the USA (increasing as a global phenomenon wherever convenience food outlets and indolent lifestyles are not stamped under the barking orders of the nearest GeneralDilemma), it is pleasing to hear that "obese" is not descriptive of this particular "end" of America in the case of your nearest and dearest, Springer.

Before the demise of civilization as we know it in the middle part of North America becomes topical again below, I have to ask (once and for all) what WAS it that created the "rotundity" remark of some weeks back???

Originally posted by Springer
First and foremost, Fulcrum, the USSR COULD NOT feed IT'S TROOPS much LESS its PEOPLE! Hardly the case here...

[Edited on 9-17-2003 by Springer]

Hate to inform ya, Springer, but it looks like we can't feed our own troops either.


ARLINGTON, Va. � Talk about adding insult to injury, said one U.S. Congressman.

Troops wounded in combat in the nation�s war on terrorism are being handed more than just discharge papers when they leave military hospitals � some also are getting a bill.

At a daily rate of $8.10, hospitalized troops, including those wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, are being charged for their meals.

�I was amazed. I couldn�t believe it when I heard it,� said Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, who has introduced a bill to repeal what he calls an �offensive� law.

�Some things don�t meet the common-sense test, and this is one of them,� said a soldier injured in Iraq in June, and who has received two meal bills, one for $24.30 from the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, and a second for more than $300 from the Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio.

�It�s not a good precedent to have when a servicemember, having received wounds in Iraq, to see the first correspondence from his government after he gets out is a bill to pay for the hospital stay,� said the 16-year Army veteran, who asked his name not be used for fear of reprisal
www.estripes.com...