The Decline of the American Empire

Black Lives Matter. Are you familiar with the group and their chants?

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/obama-war-on-cops-police-advocacy-group-225291

 

Preposterous gibberish with a dash of made up nonsense and a complete lack of knowledge of History on the side.

 

So now it's people chanting in the street, and from there you get to say Dems are complicit in murder?

My personal opinion is that all of those chanters were hired by the Kochs, as were the actual murderers, and all Republicans know and support this. Oh, and y'all hired all the Antifa too.

I got just about as much backing for that as you seem to for your assertion, which is to say none whatsoever.

 

How many of them are here illegally?

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201193

You'd expect those who can't get a legal job to live in poverty and not legally able to get welfare for themselves. They more than likely make up the majority of those living in poverty.

 

We were never in Afghanistan because of the Taliban? How old are you? US troops invaded Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda's training camps and remove the Taliban government that supported Al Qaeda. What's your version?

 

Please quote what I said and don't paraphrase. I prefer my words to yours.

Well as soon as you find any evidence of that please be sure to post it.

Then you missed the police response.

 

They are very old cultures unlike the US. Not sure if it's relevant but both Japan and China have very strict requirements for immigration, and Japan will not accept 'refugees' at all.

 

You need to back that up. Insults don't get ya there.

The perils of multi-culturalism are clear, both historically and in the present. It's plain to see.

Right now........Uni-cultural nations like China, Japan, Switzerland.......are doing well. The hugely multicultural U.S.? Not so much. We are bogged down with constant bickering and headed for a civil war.

You are arguing with a reality that is smacking you in the face.

Multi-cultural nations devolve into civil strife and infighting and failure.

Lincoln said it, "A house divided against itself cannot survive."

 

"Al Qaeda" ... that was the rational for going into Afghanistan. Because we were attacked on 911 ... and you can stop with the condescending tone as it is you who does not understand the particulars.

That was the rational for Iraq as well. One can say "yes well we also wanted to get rid of Saddam", but this was not the justification. Getting rid of dictators - just because we do not like them - is a violation of international law.

The Rational for Iraq was "Al Qaeda" .. not the Taliban. In other words - if not for Al Qaeda - there was no legitimate basis for us to go into Afghanistan. There was no legitimate basis to go into a Afghanistan simply on the basis of the Taliban.

This is not "my version" ... this is "THE Version" - how we justified our actions to NATO and the UN to try and be in keeping with international law.

Then of course you have the real reason why we are there - again having zero to do with the Taliban.

 

The Taliban were sheltering and providing training camps for Al Qaeda.

We went into Afghanistan to put a stop to that.

Thus it had almost everything to do with the Taliban.

 

I missed nothing, just ignored it as unsubstantiated claptrap. Anybody can say anybody said anything as long as they're from unnamed sources.

 

Comparison of the cultural situation in today's world - in some of today's nations - with Ancient Rome - is conflation of the highest order.

And you are not even talking "uni-cultural" - this you are conflating with uni-racial. Rome was always a vast mixture of different cultures and numerous races. The reason for the success of the Roman Empire was based on its acceptance of other cultures into the Realm.

Rome did not conquer by slaughtering everyone - nor did Alexander the Great who came before. When Rome came to your city gates - they did not immediately attack. They stood outside and summoned the leaders. These leaders were given a choice.

1) become a vassal state of Rome - with the benefits of Trade citizenship and protection - in return for taxation and conscription.

2) get wiped out, the city burned to the ground and everyone inside killed.

Most took Option 1. This allowed for the expansion of the Empire at a low cost. War is expensive business.

The reason for the rise of every Empire throughout history is as follows:

Technological innovation leads to military superiority which leads to economic hegemony. (Think if the opening scene of the movie Gladiator). The Roman's had vastly superior military technology.

The natural tendency of technology is to spread. This takes time however. In the meantime the Empire expands unbridled. Now the Empire is large with troops spread all over - spread thin in some cases. It is not cheap to project power.

Now if the vassal states are sedate and not fighting back - all is good - the costs are manageable and the return on investment via taxation and so forth is positive.

The problem is when you have some uprising at the far end of the Empire. Now you have to expend precious resources, manpower and cash to put the rebellion down.

The British had the Gatling gun. With one gunship they could pretty much take over an entire African Nation - fighting back with sticks and stones.

As time passes - that African nation gets the gatling gun (think of machine gun turrets on a German hill during WW2). Now you can not send just one gunship. You have to send an entire armada. This is expensive and there will be heavy casualties.

The cost of projecting power increases with time. This cost continues to increase to the point where the Return on Investment is negative.

Then comes the fall. If the nation tries to maintain hegemony (and it almost always does) the coffers get drained to the point of bankruptcy.

Money that could be spent keeping the people pacified - is being spent on far away wars. The Empire deteriorates and unrest among the people grows.

The annals of Roman Senators - of which we have many - detail the problems of keeping the poor fed and the city from falling into disrepair - maintaining basic public works and so on.

 

That is the standard "koolaid" version. The reality is that the Taliban condemned Al Qaeda immediately after the fact.

The idea that this 18 year war against the Taliban has been about Al Qaeda for the last 16 years is preposterous nonsense. Just as nonsensical as the idea that the war in Iraq was about Al Qaeda (another exercise in propaganda and lies).

That the Taliban had an association with Al Qaeda is not justification to wage war on the Taliban for 18 years. The Taliban had nothing to do with 911 - or terrorist actions outside the borders of Afghanistan for that matter. We were the one that facilitated the rise to power of the Taliban in the first place.

But OK - lets go with your story - "This is all about Al Qaeda" -- we are not only going after the terrorists but the "supporters of terrorism".

While this fairy tale might delight the ignorant raging masses - the reality is that Saudi Arabia was the main supporter of Al Qaeda. It was not some big secret back then and it is certainly no big secret now.

Fast forward to 2011 and all of a sudden we become one of the main supporters of Al Qaeda ! and other terrorist groups of the same ilk in Syria.

So riddle me this. What were we doing in Afghanistan since 2011 - if we are there to fight Al Qaeda - when we are arming and supporting Al Qaeda in Syria ?

 

Gunship?

You think they had gunships in colonizing 19th Century Africa?

 

It's been about a stupid attempt to establish a government where Al Qaeda cannot work its way back in.

 

Nation building.

Not that I agree with the concept of nation building.......but that's what we're doing.

 

What .. do you think they walked to Africa ? The gatling gun was invented in 1860. Obviously the point in relation to superior technology was lost on you.

The British had "gunships" going back much further than 1860.

 

It has been about destabilizing the region to prevent competing energy interests from accessing the "new silk road".

Back up your claim that Al Qaeda was part of the Afghan Gov't - even if it was, given we support this .. like in Syria, Libya, and Yemen - your raison d'etre makes absolutely no sense.

 

"Nation Building" is the code word for maintaining economic hegemony. The idea that US foreign policy has "helping people - establishing democracy - and the various other platitudes" as its goal is abject nonsense to anyone who knows anything about the reality of US foreign policy.

 

Good.

You asked what we are doing and I told you. I guess we're in agreement.

 

Since I didn't claim that, your post makes absolutely no sense.

 

I know they had ships to sail to Africa......but you said "gunships." That term is an aircraft term.

Do you think they sailed to the center of Africa in ships bristling with gatling guns?

 

If you feel that the police response to their members being killed is 'claptrap' then there is little more to say. Do you know that murders of police officers has dropped dramatically since Trump became President, or is that 'claptrap' as well?

 

I took this to mean where Al Qaeda can not work its way back into the Gov't.

Regardless - you completely ignored my points in relation to the fact that we have been working in conjunction with Al Qaeda to work their way into various gov'ts which makes this justification a patent absurdity or at minimum a platitude.

 

Either you are being disingenuously obtuse or - you just have very little knowledge of history or both.

"That is an aircraft term" ???? OK that's nice, but where do you think the word "SHIP" comes from in the word "GunSHIP" Holy carp this is getting mindless.

Of course they took gatling guns with them to Africa once invented. Prior to that they had rafts of cannons - and of course after.

I am stopping here - this is just getting way to painful.