13 responses to “American Empire: Before the Fall”

  1. http://seguroconsulte.com.br/seguro-auto/">Seguro auto

    It’s not that I want to copy your web page, but I really like the style and design. Could you let me know which design are you using? Or was it tailor made?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. reseller hosting

    Glad to be one of the visitants on this awing site : D. cpanel reseller | best reseller hosting |

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. Yvonne

    Attacking the Barbary pirates was a good move on our part. But what happened next? Did we go into the Middle East and set up bases in a pre-emptive effort to end piracy? No. No we didn’t.
    What if our answer to those attacks had been to ignore the boats and pirates on the waters and set up a base in the Middle East? What if co-incidentally the army bases helped protected miners? What if we had army bases protecting miners in the mid-east while pirates in the open seas were left un checked?
    That’s akin to what is happening now.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

  4. Ben

    “Neutrality and non-entanglements were the North Stars of foreign policy… The Republic would not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.”

    Uh, yeah…in a sense. I’m well aware of Washington’s Farwell Address and all, but did you ever ask yourself why we went to war with the Barbary pirates on two occassions? Those were the original Islamic terrorists. We went all the way to North Africa (an incredible distance in those days before airplanes) and stomped their guts out. That’s the way we should do things these days. In any case, that’s not “non-interventionism”. That’s killing bad guys, a foreign policy I whole heartedly agree with and Ron Paul wholeheartedly opposes.

    I wouldn’t say that we currently have a stance of neutrailty and non-entanglement. Not in this day and age. If that were the case, we wouldn’t have any allies. Are we not supposed to have allies or something? There’s nothing in the constitution about it. That’s Washington’s philosophy and not necessarily a principle of American law or policy.

    In any case, we aren’t looking for enemies abroad. The enemies are there, they are real, and we can ignore them at our own peril.


    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 14

  5. Bottomline

    The founding fathers were also opposed to intervention of other countries because of the long term impact it has casued this great nation of ours to police them.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

    1. Forest

      Really. So you are saying, for one quick example, Jefferson was opposed to intervention? Or are you saying that he wasn’t a founding father?

      Letting his residence in France to be used as a meeting place for rebels during the French Revolution is considered non-interventionist?

      “Jefferson reached the limits of his influence when he attempted to intrude republican principles in Russia, Poland, Greece, and the emerging South American nations.”

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11

    2. Forest

      By the way, the Native Americans might also disagree with your little starry-eyed belief that our Founding Fathers didn’t completely agree in non-intervention.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6

      1. Yvonne

        During the gold rush many if not most of the wars were perpetrated against american indians. Think of that. It wasn’t the Founding fathers of New England it t was oil diggers…um….I mean gold diggers….
        Think about it.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5

        1. Bottomline

          You go Yvonne! Gee I wonder what history tale told you that you little “FOREST” TROLL?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

    3. Ben

      Really? All of them? Can you back that up?

      They weren’t opposed to French interventionism on our behalf.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

      1. Yvonne

        They weren’t opposed to French interventionism on our behalf?
        Ok. True enough.
        At the time though; England was an empire building ,war mongering nation which was running out of cash and imposing taxes on us to pay for it. Sound familiar?
        I don’t think that being an under dog in the war and accepting help from another of the English empire’s enemies, is the same thing as becoming and empire builder ourselves.
        Also the fact that Jefferson had residence in France and let American’s use it is not exactly policy making. That was just the personal actions of one man who had residence in two countries.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  6. Machine

    Excellent…There is more than enough info out there…Start with and/or share with others:

    The Declaration of Independence
    The U.S. Constitution
    The first Ten Amendments (your Civil Rights)

    And if that doesn’t say enough…
    Then venture on to these books by Howard Zinn:
    A Peoples History Of The United States
    Passionate Declarations; Essays on War and Justice (Previously titled Declarations of Independence; cross examining American Ideology)
    A Peoples History of American Empire ( which you can watch comentary on…on the above video)

    Kingdom of Fear by Hunter S. Thompson

    Creating True Peace by Tich Nhat Hanh ( not political)

    The Law and the Lawers by Gandhi

    Any book that offers lessons on the rise, reign, and fall of Empires, Dynasties, and Kingdoms certainly couldn’t hurt with helping teach the future generations why over expansion (empire building, Nation building, etc.) jeapordizes our freedom, is hypocritical of our Declaration of Independence, but more than anything is a danger to all of Humanity.

    We cannot go back and change the past, but what history shows us is that Governments do decline from healthy ideas, which in time are tread upon. The lesson – when we study it objectively – is that we do not have to continue down a destructive and fatal path, thus changing direction when we see ourselves headed towards collapse. It’s simple logic of survival. This is the only way History bennefits us. To date we have ignored those lessons. This is our demise.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2

    1. David

      I do like your posts Machine, well thought out and full of reason and common sense.

      You are right as well, a simple examination of history is all that it takes in order to determine what can work and what will not, and what i’ve found is that any society which has tolerated any form of banking system or private control over its economy and means of exchange has eventually collapsed with absolute power and all of the wealth resting in the hands of a few, and the remainder being subjected to lives of abject poverty and servitude to that power. Alternately, in the very few instances where an economies means of exchange was freely produced as a public asset, with the single and only purpose of facilitating trade and production those societies grew and became ever more prosperous for as long as this condition was in effect, and until banks figured out a way to gain power and control over that currency which they have been progressively doing here until that control was absolute.

      The collapse has already begun, and their power and control over our political system is as absolute as their power and control over our currency by now, but by mass action by the population it would still be possible to destroy that power at this point and restore things to what they should be and as Franklin did prior to the revolution, where we would not only regain the freedom and prosperity which has been taken from us, but multiply it to many times more than it has ever been. Freedom and power cannot exist in the same space as one can only exist at the expense of the other, and eventually only one can remain. Kill the banks, we kill the power along with all of the problems they create to maintain and increase it, and only freedom and prosperity can remain in its place.

      This is what we need to motivate, and what many of us are trying to motivate at this point as well.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0