Of course the US doesn't go around taking over other countries and holding them militarily for an extended period of time.
We don't use force to enslave entire groups of people; we don't use prisoners as gladiators, having them fight each other and wild animals for the pleasure of the upper class. We trust science, not multiple gods for war, love, harvest and such. Our leaders are elected in peaceful public elections, not by monarchy, or internal fighting. So yes, we have a volunteer army, but it is one that is supported by the all of the citizens of this country, while we may not always agree where to send them, we agree that they should do their job well and just, protecting the innocent from injustice, not causing it when they come through. So what nation has lasted through history? It seems to me that no nation has really lasted regardless, while new countries have formed in old borders, even keeping the same name. All nations have fallen at one point or another, the question is how does that nation rebuild that determines its success. > -----Original Message----- > From: Bill Wheatley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 7:28 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Personal Stance Change for Iraq Policy > > Hehe but the kewlest trivia was that rome was a All Volunteer military at > the end very similar to the us. And that no nation with an all volunteer > military has ever lasted through history!!!. > > EWWWWW we're next!! lol i remember when we heard that and it was funny i > think the teacher was just trying to scare us. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Larry C. Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 8:13 PM > Subject: Re: Personal Stance Change for Iraq Policy > > > Given that most of Rome's opponents were disorganized tribes, and very > small kingdoms, with one or 2 exceptions, that isn't saying much. Moreover > the fall of the western Roman Empire can be attributed to a lot more than > just how they looked at opponents. In the 4th through 6th centuries (when > the downfall occurred according to most historians), the economy of the > empire was in tatters, much like now. Moreover the legions were not Roman > any more - they were staffed mainly by Germanic tribes like the Gepids and > the Alans. > > so you're vastly overgeneralizing. There were other more important factors > than the trivia you mentioned. > > larry > > At 05:02 PM 3/4/2003 -0500, you wrote: > >Anyway, that's the way the Roman's would have looked at it. It was > >only an enemy they didn't foresee that caused their downfall. All the > >rest were beaten to the punch. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
