Rome at the end had constant warfare. America has extreme internal divisions which I think is the #1 threat.
Do you think America will decline like the Roman Empire did?
- Thread starter HawkFan1298
- Start date
It already has. Our society and culture is a giant cess pool.
Our values are skewed. And I’d need a good 10 minutes to outline everything, but I’m currently on the road working.
Economically and militarily we’ll still be a force to reckon with for decades to come.
Declining yes….but we’ve been the apex dog for damned near a century so there really is nowhere to go but down….
Declining yes….but we’ve been the apex dog for damned near a century so there really is nowhere to go but down….
Last edited:
I think the emergence of an appetite for a "strong man" type leader is a bad sign.
Well it's a natural product of the us vs them politics.
Or it's a sign that we're sliding into neo-fascism.
We can WOB with any country on earth.
Well autocorrect sucks!!
All empires crumble. The American neoEmpire will be no different. We've over expanded ourselves militarily. We've devalued our currency chasing liberal pipe dreams. We've allowed ourselves to be divided into a myriad of 'us vs them' groups. Once America decided to be the world police and arbiters of "justice" this outcome became inevitable.
Say what you want about LBJ and Nixon at least they paid for wars. Unlike Dubya Bush, Obama, etc etc.
Is there any civilization in mankind’s history that has remained fully intact for more than a few hundred years? This merry-go-round can’t last forever.
As others have said, all empires fall at some point. My fear is it's going to happen in my lifetime or my kids lifetime. When the needs of the one out weigh the needs of the many, then we have a problem. Then when you elect leaders that believe in the needs of the one, that's an even bigger problem. I'm hoping we can work through this but I don't see a happy ending based on what I'm seeing. I would have never thought this 10 years ago so it's pretty shocking how quickly things can change.
Most historians have the Roman Empire lasting
about 500 years. (27 B.C. to 476 A.D.)
Some of the factors which led to the Fall of the
Roman Empire:
1. Overreliance on slave labor
2. Inflation and military overspending
3. Government corruption & instability
4. Invasions by barbarian tribes
America has been in existence for about 250
years and we now have problems with #2 & #3
as listed above.
about 500 years. (27 B.C. to 476 A.D.)
Some of the factors which led to the Fall of the
Roman Empire:
1. Overreliance on slave labor
2. Inflation and military overspending
3. Government corruption & instability
4. Invasions by barbarian tribes
America has been in existence for about 250
years and we now have problems with #2 & #3
as listed above.
I see the U.S. going the route of the U.K. Still strong but not what it used to be.
#1 could also be be included in the problems if you include reliance on low-paid, unskilled labor which is showing itself currently with the labor shortage, the supply chain issues.
If fascism takes over? Yep
If democracy rules and we eliminated the minority gerrymandering, so that elected representatives are accountable to the voters? We'll be fine.
Climate change certainly won’t help. That will enhance our decline as much as most things mentioned.
barbarian tribes?
Those "Barbarian" tribes were in fact organized civilizations who migrated from Northern Europe over a couple of centuries and eventually encroached on the Roman Empire. There is much more to it than that, but there is an entire history of the Goths, Visigoths, Jutes, Vandals, Luxembourgs, and a few others that were gradually moving East, West, and South.
They were somewhat different from marauders and probably had more in common with Mexicans gradually and over time making their way to Texas and Arizona and then on to Iowa and North Dakota.
Do not be confused by the term "Barbarian." Rome wrote the history and got to choose the terminology.
From Bing:
................................................................................................................................
Archaeological finds, loans from Germany, Denmark, Poland and Romania, show that while the Germanic tribes did live in villages without a fortified road and not, like many Romans, in cities, they weren't actually living in primeval forests. Excavations have proven that in certain areas, settlements were no further than 12 kilometers (7.5 miles) apart, and sometimes within sight of each other, surrounded by fields and meadows.
A digital reconstruction of a Germanic village with cultivated fields
You people need a Mackindergarten lesson. Seriously...research Sir Halford Mackinder, the father of geopolitics, who had influenced Kissinger, Spyckman, Brzezinski, Hitler's guy, Karl Haushofer, et al Read The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Who rules Eastern Europe commands the Heartland
Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island
Who rules the World Island commands the world
Mackinder’s Heartland Theory
Who rules Eastern Europe commands the Heartland
Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island
Who rules the World Island commands the world
Mackinder’s Heartland Theory
- Mackinder gave this theory in 1904.
- He offered a very original approach to the regional geopolitical structuralization of the Eurasian continent and the identification of the functional value of its spatial segments.
- His doctrine suggested that the geopolitical subject (actor) that dominated the Heartland would possess the necessary geopolitical and economic potential to ultimately control the World Island and the planet.
- Mackinder’s gave the theory of a world power shift which is widely known as the “Heartland Theory”.
- It reflects the intricate dynamics of geography, political power, and military strategy, interwoven with demography and economics. It is these dynamics and relationships, which Mackinder viewed as strengths, that characterize the Heartland and speak to its importance.
- According to Mackinder, the geographically connected landmass of Europe, Asia, and Africa, what Mackinder called the “World Island”. This is centrally positioned in the world. Mackinder called it the Heartland.
- To Mackinder, this geographic positioning means that as a united force, the World Island could both project power in a way that demonstrates her global supremacy and protect herself against external powers.
- This theory regards political history as a continuous struggle between land and sea powers with the ultimate victory going to the continental power.
- Mackinder predicted that whoever got the balance of power in its favour would rule-the World Island and who would rule the World Island would rule the World.
- Its simplicity and boldness have been achieved at the cost of accuracy regarding the historical and the geographical details.
Shouting your ignorance from the mountaintop with a bullhorn, I see. It was precisely this reason that Zbig wrote his book in '97. Asia possesses 75% of the world's resources and 75% of the world's population.
It was understood that the UK controlled the seas and shipping chokepoints and thus upstart nations challenging hegemony would be contained. In 1894, Russia was building the Trans-Siberian RR. Commerce could be shipped across the whole continent by rail and out of our control. But, you apparently know more than the people sitting at the fulcrum of governments.
China's BRI is a threat to any economic rival.
Last edited:
We were already in decline but power-hungry politicians and the Trump-effect will be very hard to overcome.
How about you explain how you came up with this idiotic response?
The simple fact is this: China, besides having the world's most populous nation and labor pool, it also dominates in the Int'l Math Olympiad every year. They churn out 10 x's the amount of perfect IQ's as us. However, they don't have energy. They are allied with Russia, (thanks to American Russophobia) and they have $75 Trillion in natural resources. The 2nd most is America with $45T. The 2 are connected with Iran who has the 2nd most natgas reserves and 4th most reserves in oil. They are members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
The world island is Eurasia + Africa. Collectively, that is 6.5B of the world's 8 Billion people. China's Belt and Road Initiative is connecting the world island as they build infrastructure (railways, road, nuclear reactors and such). This is the angst that keeps Washington up all hours of the night. Dying empires have rarely gone away peacefully. This explains the troubles all over the world today. Why is Washington supporting the monarchies of Saudi Arabia and the UAE (bastions of human rights cough) as they bomb the crap out of Yemen? The masses stood up to the Saudis and earned their independence. But, UAE controls the ports and the critical chokepoint of al bab mandab strait south of the Red Sea to the Suez Canal. It is a launching point for China's entry into Africa and a 1.3B market and vast supplies of energy.
In Europe, China is the EU's largest trade partner. The Comprehensive Agreement on Investment was agreed in principle months ago and was supposed to be inked by their respective EU parliaments last summer. This is why Germany is not onboard with the US over Ukraine. We have 340M people. China just lifted 800M out of poverty. That's a huge market for German autos and will join R&C and not choose war. France will follow Germany.
The world island is Eurasia + Africa. Collectively, that is 6.5B of the world's 8 Billion people. China's Belt and Road Initiative is connecting the world island as they build infrastructure (railways, road, nuclear reactors and such). This is the angst that keeps Washington up all hours of the night. Dying empires have rarely gone away peacefully. This explains the troubles all over the world today. Why is Washington supporting the monarchies of Saudi Arabia and the UAE (bastions of human rights cough) as they bomb the crap out of Yemen? The masses stood up to the Saudis and earned their independence. But, UAE controls the ports and the critical chokepoint of al bab mandab strait south of the Red Sea to the Suez Canal. It is a launching point for China's entry into Africa and a 1.3B market and vast supplies of energy.
In Europe, China is the EU's largest trade partner. The Comprehensive Agreement on Investment was agreed in principle months ago and was supposed to be inked by their respective EU parliaments last summer. This is why Germany is not onboard with the US over Ukraine. We have 340M people. China just lifted 800M out of poverty. That's a huge market for German autos and will join R&C and not choose war. France will follow Germany.
Last edited:
You stated that the hunger for having leadership form a strong man is troubling .
That's simplistic. Clinton blessed China's accession to the WTO. EU nations are not in agreement with Biden on Ukraine. They see how they are being sacrificed (energy prices have already exploded because of our meddling). Food prices are mushrooming. All this for a war we will not fight.
No I didn't. I said the appetite for a "strong man" type leader is troubling.
It has nothing to do with gender. Are you some kind of SJW?
