Quote from: Mountainshield on August 06, 2014, 01:22:29 AM
They did not run out of money because of standing armies, they continually downsized their armies after the start of the 2nd century (the state diverted the funds to luxury trade instead), hired more auxiliaries instead of citizens which meant force equalization with the barbarians, went into a bunker mentality (building walls instead of sieges) and if you have read history you would know that the post Imperial system was built on the foundation of the Republican system, just like this modern liberal economy is feeding off the previous conservative economy, it is only a matter of time before welfare exceeds tax revenue and that is why they ran out of money.

I actually agree with what you say to some extent. The reasons you sited are at least partly responsible for the fall of Rome. One exception, I have never heard a single historian (or laymen) blame "bunker mentality" for the fall of Rome. I think maybe you are grasping at straws in order to defend U.S. Military adventurism around the globe.

In any case - I am not going to argue the fall of the Roman empire with you. Professional historians can't agree on the causes. Here are the mainstream "8 Reasons Why Rome Fell" according to the History channel website.
Pay attention to number 4 and 8.

1. Invasions by Barbarian tribes
2. Economic troubles and overreliance on slave labor
3. The rise of the Eastern Empire
4. Overexpansion and military overspending 
"Rome struggled to marshal enough troops and resources to defend its frontiers from local rebellions and outside attacks, and by the second century the Emperor Hadrian was forced to build his famous wall in Britain just to keep the enemy at bay"
5. Government corruption and political instability
6. The arrival of the Huns and the migration of the Barbarian tribes
7. Christianity and the loss of traditional values
8. Weakening of the Roman legions 
"Unable to recruit enough soldiers from the Roman citizenry, emperors like Diocletian and Constantine began hiring foreign mercenaries to prop up their armies"

Feel free to make "ancient alien" jokes on the History Channels reliability - but I think they got the major causes right on this one.

I am pretty sure the empire was brought down by polices that undermined their internal social coordination.

So we can speak about the inflation policy, price controls, government spending, etc as the ultimate cause.

Once the social organism was weakened and fractured, Rome was an easy target.

Solar, it is my view that the way you treat people who have differing views is arrogant and over the top.

It is not conducive to intellectual debate.

It is conducive to juvenile sniping, insults and trolling.

Just my two cents.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 11, 2014, 09:04:11 AM
Solar, it is my view that the way you treat people who have differing views is arrogant and over the top.

It is not conducive to intellectual debate.

It is conducive to juvenile sniping, insults and trolling.

Just my two cents.

STFU! I honestly don't give a damn what you think. Just my two cents.

But when some arrogant ignorant kid comes in and touts a system that's never worked as the only solution, then ridicule is on the menu.

If you or he can't take it, then move along.

Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2014, 09:11:41 AM
STFU! I honestly don't give a damn what you think. Just my two cents.

But when some arrogant ignorant kid comes in and touts a system that's never worked as the only solution, then ridicule is on the menu.

If you or he can't take it, then move along.

Oh, I can give it better than just about anyone. You should know that.

The issue is, I get bored by such posturing. It solves nothing and makes you look immature and unable to debate...

It is better to explain what the opposition's argument is wrong about, in detail, than it is to merely assume yourself correct.

But far be it for me to ruin your fun with civility. If you want a circle jerk for a forum, I will not stand in your way!

Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 11, 2014, 10:07:59 AM
Oh, I can give it better than just about anyone. You should know that.

The issue is, I get bored by such posturing. It solves nothing and makes you look immature and unable to debate...

It is better to explain what the opposition's argument is wrong about, in detail, than it is to merely assume yourself correct.

But far be it for me to ruin your fun with civility. If you want a circle jerk for a forum, I will not stand in your way!

I tried to explain where he was wrong, but he refused to recognize the HUGE flaw in his plan.
Mainly his stance he could hire a paid security force, in other words, a bunch of mercenaries who always go to the highest bidder.
So pointing out, I just bought his force off and seized his land killed his entire fantasy Utopian dream.

That's reality, his point was not based in the real world.
At that point, he becomes a slave, I own him and everything he holds dear.

Our Founders understood this as well, which is why it was the Only thing the Fed was charged to do.

Quote from: Novanglus on August 10, 2014, 10:51:35 PM
I actually agree with what you say to some extent. The reasons you sited are at least partly responsible for the fall of Rome. One exception, I have never heard a single historian (or laymen) blame "bunker mentality" for the fall of Rome. I think maybe you are grasping at straws in order to defend U.S. Military adventurism around the globe.

In any case - I am not going to argue the fall of the Roman empire with you. Professional historians can't agree on the causes. Here are the mainstream "8 Reasons Why Rome Fell" according to the History channel website.
Pay attention to number 4 and 8.

1. Invasions by Barbarian tribes
2. Economic troubles and overreliance on slave labor
3. The rise of the Eastern Empire
4. Overexpansion and military overspending 
"Rome struggled to marshal enough troops and resources to defend its frontiers from local rebellions and outside attacks, and by the second century the Emperor Hadrian was forced to build his famous wall in Britain just to keep the enemy at bay"
5. Government corruption and political instability
6. The arrival of the Huns and the migration of the Barbarian tribes
7. Christianity and the loss of traditional values
8. Weakening of the Roman legions 
"Unable to recruit enough soldiers from the Roman citizenry, emperors like Diocletian and Constantine began hiring foreign mercenaries to prop up their armies"

Feel free to make "ancient alien" jokes on the History Channels reliability - but I think they got the major causes right on this one.

Many of those points are correct, and I loved the history channel. But hey, even their documentary called "Ancient Empires" I think, it also underpinned the fact that the Roman Empire went into bunker/fortress mentality.

Point 8 just underscore my point, I would advice you to read some more then there are hundreds of historians and if none of the books you have read specified the strategical shift from expansion too defense then they don't know what they are talking about as the Romans build walls and garrisons and even changed their armor and shield to suit defensive tactics (scalemail, spears instead of gladius, oval shields etc).

As for point 4 the spending, the Roman legion was always dependent on loot and pillaging to maintain itself . When the Roman Legions went defensive and manned walls/garrisons instead of laying siege and plundering the Legion became 100% an expense instead of also providing source of revenue. Also take into consideration that the state aka aristocracy/bureaucracy wanted to spend more money on luxury trade than legions

Please read Plutarch a contemporary historian instead of modern revisionist historians.

As for point 6, Romans have always had a hard time dealing with horse archers, just read about Crassus (the richest guy in Rome) failed invasion into Parthia. But they did manage to defeat Parthia under Trajan, and it shows the great flaw of totalitarianism, you are always dependent on the correct person, which are few and far between.

Quote from: Mountainshield on August 11, 2014, 11:17:03 AM
Many of those points are correct, and I loved the history channel. But hey, even their documentary called "Ancient Empires" I think, it also underpinned the fact that the Roman Empire went into bunker/fortress mentality.

Point 8 just underscore my point, I would advice you to read some more then there are hundreds of historians and if none of the books you have read specified the strategical shift from expansion too defense then they don't know what they are talking about as the Romans build walls and garrisons and even changed their armor and shield to suit defensive tactics (scalemail, spears instead of gladius, oval shields etc).

As for point 4 the spending, the Roman legion was always dependent on loot and pillaging to maintain itself . When the Roman Legions went defensive and manned walls/garrisons instead of laying siege and plundering the Legion became 100% an expense instead of also providing source of revenue. Also take into consideration that the state aka aristocracy/bureaucracy wanted to spend more money on luxury trade than legions

Please read Plutarch a contemporary historian instead of modern revisionist historians.

As for point 6, Romans have always had a hard time dealing with horse archers, just read about Crassus (the richest guy in Rome) failed invasion into Parthia. But they did manage to defeat Parthia under Trajan, and it shows the great flaw of totalitarianism, you are always dependent on the correct person, which are few and far between.

ok
Thanks
I will check out Plutarch some time soon.

But, my point is that running out of money and people willing to fight for her helped (at least) Rome fall.
The connection being that having troops spread all over the globe minding everyone's beeswax does not help the USA. It wastes money, it's arrogant and most of all it makes many Americans unwilling to fight (political will).

It's not a bunker mentality - I'm fine with using military force when OUR interests are clearly threatened. Not the interests of every sorry ass population around the globe that won't stand up and against despots and religious nut jobs.

Likewise, trying to keep a lid on every hot spot in the world by parking a few thousand troops nearby is a waste of money, men and political will. Any effort to police the world is futile; a more effective strategy in my opinion is to conserve resources, train, equip and be ready for war if and when it is needed. When some one attacks US, crush them completely - scorch the earth they live on - leave nothing standing, make an example to deter aggression. But it only works if we mind our beeswax, if they don't bother US - leave them alone!!

In fact, I advocated nuking Afghanistan in the days following 9/11 - just to make a point to other countries. The points being, 1) if you let terrorists operate in your country, your country is responsible for what they do and 2) If you attack US, we will not hesitate to destroy your country.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 11, 2014, 10:07:59 AM
Oh, I can give it better than just about anyone. You should know that.

The issue is, I get bored by such posturing. It solves nothing and makes you look immature and unable to debate...

It is better to explain what the opposition's argument is wrong about, in detail, than it is to merely assume yourself correct.

But far be it for me to ruin your fun with civility. If you want a circle jerk for a forum, I will not stand in your way!

Maybe this may help you understand my position better.
If you owned a forum and some idiot came in claiming they merely wanted to exchange ideas regarding pedophilia, but you knew good and well they weren't in the least interested in discussion, rather they were looking for a podium from which to spew their warped ideals.

Same goes for communists, I don't give them a soap box either, for the same reason, both slap in the face of human nature.

He never was interested in an exchange of ideas, I've seen it far too often over the decades.
The system he proposed completely neglected human nature, ignored purposefully to recognize the American experiment has been the most successful attempt at limited govt in the history of the world, yet he believes all that's needed to improve upon it is to remove it most integral component, a Republican form of Govt.

Everyone is welcome to exchange ideas, but I take exception when one abuses such a privilege.

In conclusion, I caught a troll and beat the shit out of him, it's that simple. That's why you got the response you received.
Does that clear it up? Whether or not you agree, I'm the final arbiter on who sets the agenda on this forum.

 

Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 11, 2014, 08:55:43 AM
I am pretty sure the empire was brought down by polices that undermined their internal social coordination.

So we can speak about the inflation policy, price controls, government spending, etc as the ultimate cause.

Once the social organism was weakened and fractured, Rome was an easy target.

I'm sure those where all contributing factors. On the History channels list I posted I think they would fall under numbers 2, 5 and 7.

Quote from: Novanglus on August 11, 2014, 07:02:23 PM
ok
Thanks
I will check out Plutarch some time soon.

But, my point is that running out of money and people willing to fight for her helped (at least) Rome fall.
The connection being that having troops spread all over the globe minding everyone's beeswax does not help the USA. It wastes money, it's arrogant and most of all it makes many Americans unwilling to fight (political will).

It's not a bunker mentality - I'm fine with using military force when OUR interests are clearly threatened. Not the interests of every sorry ass population around the globe that won't stand up and against despots and religious nut jobs.

Likewise, trying to keep a lid on every hot spot in the world by parking a few thousand troops nearby is a waste of money, men and political will. Any effort to police the world is futile; a more effective strategy in my opinion is to conserve resources, train, equip and be ready for war if and when it is needed. When some one attacks US, crush them completely - scorch the earth they live on - leave nothing standing, make an example to deter aggression. But it only works if we mind our beeswax, if they don't bother US - leave them alone!!

In fact, I advocated nuking Afghanistan in the days following 9/11 - just to make a point to other countries. The points being, 1) if you let terrorists operate in your country, your country is responsible for what they do and 2) If you attack US, we will not hesitate to destroy your country.

I would agree with that. Just launch a couple of "Rods from God", nuclear warheads or good old carpet bombing down on the islam scum if they try to pull off some attack instead of occupation trying to civilize barbaric people. When the Portuguese first encountered the Japanese they said this is the first time we have a met a culture that rivals our own, can't apply the same strategy for Islam just because it worked with civilized Japan. The Japanese know when to surrender, the Muslims will rather strap bombs on their children.

Would be better for the US to be the policeman of Latin America instead, that worked a lot better until political correctness took over.

Quote from: taxed on August 09, 2014, 09:27:54 PM
jrodefeld, why do muslims hate us so much?

I think that is a pretty unsubstantiated claim.  I don't believe that "muslims" hate us.  Some radical muslims choose to use the tactic of terrorism to strike back at us for a variety of reasons.  It is true that radical Islamic sects teach that Western culture and society, not to mention Christianity, are evil and degenerate.  However, an effective campaign to galvanize popular support for a coordinated network of Al Qaeda terrorists would never be possible based on these reasons alone.  As Robert Pape and others have documented, there was a time when radical muslim leaders tried to gain support for a network of coordinated attacks on American allies and embassies based on only these doctrinaire concerns.  Such an effort was a consistent failure.  People might, in the abstract, object to the rights we grant to women, the freedom we afford our citizens and the fact that we are majority Christian, but they won't risk their lives and devote their time to fight for such abstract principles.

In fact the evidence shows that it was only when people like Osama bin Laden were able to point to occupation, bombing campaigns, the subversion of self determination by installing puppet dictators perpetrated by the United States government that a coordinated and determined Jihadist effort against the United States started to take effect.  Our government has provided the ammunition that radical Muslim leaders need to convert otherwise moderate Muslims, people who would be potential friends and allies, to their cause.

We don't need to be sticking our heads into hornets nests and then complain that we keep getting stung.  This doesn't excuse the killing of innocent people, but if there is a clear cause and effect to our military action, we need to take that seriously and reassess what we are doing.

Quote from: Solar on August 10, 2014, 05:45:10 AM
Because we're capitalists?, ummm, no, were on their claimed land?, nah again, because we're in league with Jooos, nah?

Oh, I know, because they're fools that follow a religion dreamed up by a pedophile that tells them Allah will give them 70 virgins if they kill and die in his name, that all non Arabs are infidels and must be killed or forced into slavery.

Wait, are you saying there are unreasonable people in the world, that not everyone is interested in fair trade with you, that they'd rather just take what you have and kill you?

Hmmm, it would appear that a army beyond ones border would be a necessary evil if you want to survive.
So lets see, what would work better, an army made up of citizens of like minded people willing to fight and die to protect what they've created, or a private security force, one that only owes allegiance to those willing to pay top price.

Gee Taxed, I'm gonna have to stick with an army of my true friends and citizens, because word has it, a mercenary force can easily be bought off by my enemies.
And then there's always the teeny tiny chance that my paid security, might just turn on me because I refused to have my own military, one that would protect my non-govt, govt.

Imagine that, people with self interest over an ideal Utopia. But it would work if everyone was willing to give up human nature, the drive to conquer ones domain, dominate the weak and foolish.

So what exactly are you willing to sacrifice to deal with the "muslim threat"?  Do you want to install democracy?  Do you think we need to support Israel militarily and financially, even if it makes us less safe?  Do you want to intervene in the middle east through propping up puppet dictators?

And how much money is it worth so you will feel safe? 

Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2014, 06:36:35 AM
Maybe this may help you understand my position better.
If you owned a forum and some idiot came in claiming they merely wanted to exchange ideas regarding pedophilia, but you knew good and well they weren't in the least interested in discussion, rather they were looking for a podium from which to spew their warped ideals.

Same goes for communists, I don't give them a soap box either, for the same reason, both slap in the face of human nature.

He never was interested in an exchange of ideas, I've seen it far too often over the decades.
The system he proposed completely neglected human nature, ignored purposefully to recognize the American experiment has been the most successful attempt at limited govt in the history of the world, yet he believes all that's needed to improve upon it is to remove it most integral component, a Republican form of Govt.

Everyone is welcome to exchange ideas, but I take exception when one abuses such a privilege.

In conclusion, I caught a troll and beat the shit out of him, it's that simple. That's why you got the response you received.
Does that clear it up? Whether or not you agree, I'm the final arbiter on who sets the agenda on this forum.

Damn, you "beat the shit" out of me?  And you compared me to someone advocating pedophilia.  As someone who apparently has so much "wisdom" given you are thirty or forty years older than me, I would expect you not to use such juvenile tactics designed to stifle debate. 

Just because I am not persuaded by your "arguments" doesn't mean I'm not interested in a discussion in good faith. 

I've asked you before without any substantive answer, but given the evident failure of the Constitution to limit the expansion of State power, how do you propose to actually limit the State?  If a written Constitution, the best ever drafted I'll concede, has proven to be completely ineffective at limiting the growth of State power, why don't you offer some explanation? 

Experiments in anarchy have been successfully tried in history, but it is always a foolish thing to resist innovations and improvements in social organization because something new "has never existed before".  Democracy, with total suffrage for the citizens, didn't exist before the early 20th century.  A limited Constitutional Republic was never successfully tried before thirteen colonies won a war for independence from Great Britain.  And so forth and so on.

Your argument from human nature is unpersuasive.  And I agree with TowardLiberty, your tactics are unprofessional and juvenile.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 15, 2014, 12:26:43 AM
I think that is a pretty unsubstantiated claim.  I don't believe that "muslims" hate us.  Some radical muslims choose to use the tactic of terrorism to strike back at us for a variety of reasons.  It is true that radical Islamic sects teach that Western culture and society, not to mention Christianity, are evil and degenerate.  However, an effective campaign to galvanize popular support for a coordinated network of Al Qaeda terrorists would never be possible based on these reasons alone.  As Robert Pape and others have documented, there was a time when radical muslim leaders tried to gain support for a network of coordinated attacks on American allies and embassies based on only these doctrinaire concerns.  Such an effort was a consistent failure.  People might, in the abstract, object to the rights we grant to women, the freedom we afford our citizens and the fact that we are majority Christian, but they won't risk their lives and devote their time to fight for such abstract principles.

In fact the evidence shows that it was only when people like Osama bin Laden were able to point to occupation, bombing campaigns, the subversion of self determination by installing puppet dictators perpetrated by the United States government that a coordinated and determined Jihadist effort against the United States started to take effect.  Our government has provided the ammunition that radical Muslim leaders need to convert otherwise moderate Muslims, people who would be potential friends and allies, to their cause.

We don't need to be sticking our heads into hornets nests and then complain that we keep getting stung.  This doesn't excuse the killing of innocent people, but if there is a clear cause and effect to our military action, we need to take that seriously and reassess what we are doing.

"I think that is a pretty unsubstantiated claim.  I don't believe that "muslims" hate us."

Just what part of "KILL ALL THE INFIDELS" do you not understand?