The New Romans. Guess who...

[BustaMike]

The Simpson's is not trash. My favorite Simpson's clip...

Fat Asian in Hottub - Herro, American Investor. We see you are interested in distributing Mr. Spakle in you home prefature. You have chosen wisely, but don't breave me. Pease view this informative commersheral.

AAAAAAEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAA!
I am disrespectful to dirt. Can you see that I am serious!
Out of the way! This is no place for loafers. Join me or die! Can you do any less?
::giggles:: What a brave corporate logo, we accept the challenge of Mr. Sparkle.
Awsomer Power!
...
So what are your plans for the summer?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAA
::cow disintegrates::

For Lucky Best wash everytime use Mr. Sparkle!


That, my friend, is the true beauty of America. The ability to create useless yet absolutely hysterical crap like that.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by paiktis22
bull the thing will crumble in 30 years but then everyone will like them.

Maybe not 30...but in 100 years the signs of the fall will be there for all who care to look.

Direct military interventionism started in the early 1900s and gained ground through the 20th century. This is the new "direct rule"; the world no longer stands for concrete empires, and has begun to take a serious disliking to American-style hegemony as well. The barbarians won't sack Rome (as they didn't sack Rome during the British Empire) but the peak of American global dominance is past. 1991 seemed like a high point...but was already part of the decline. While military adventurism will continue to increase, real strength will decrease in a very real viscious circle. I just hope the US lets go as (relatively) gently as the British did when it becomes impossible to deny that the end has come.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by paiktis22
why not?

the eastern empire was definitely greek.

and you will fall cause like the english you're dumb

Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Frogger


Maybe not 30...but in 100 years the signs of the fall will be there for all who care to look.

Direct military interventionism started in the early 1900s and gained ground through the 20th century. This is the new "direct rule"; the world no longer stands for concrete empires, and has begun to take a serious disliking to American-style hegemony as well. The barbarians won't sack Rome (as they didn't sack Rome during the British Empire) but the peak of American global dominance is past. 1991 seemed like a high point...but was already part of the decline. While military adventurism will continue to increase, real strength will decrease in a very real viscious circle. I just hope the US lets go as (relatively) gently as the British did when it becomes impossible to deny that the end has come.

Frogger, If you compare the demoralized America of the '70s with today's America, you will see that we are infinitely more powerful and confident than then. Our Amry of Vietnam had become a joke - and officer-shooting, pot-smoking, ill-disciplined rabble. We are definitely not in decline.

[Giovanni Wine]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
Btw Mc Donald's around Italy are much more than 20-30 (there are 4 in my town, which is just a suburb of the big city) and filled by teenagers. Obese teenagers, of course

Uhmmm
I don't know about Milano.
But in Torino, which is a 1 milion people size city, there are 2 Mc donald's, one in the city centrum, and one close to the Stadium.

And since In Italy there something like 10-15 big cities, I just multiplied Torino's number with the cities 2+(10-15)= 20-30

BTW:
The Torino's McDonald's addicts are mostly immigrants from Marocco or Asia. (no they are not obese...... yet )

Saluti

[DaShi]

obese

[DinoDoc]

If we are the new Rome, I want to burn a random country's capital to the ground and then salt the earth where the city once stood.

[Adalbertus]

that is incorrect! They were not barbarian, they were peasants, at least they felt like peasants...

I didn't talk about what they felt but what I think they were. And if you asked the anthropoi, all non-Greeks were barbarians.

EDIT: Barbarian means bearded, and thus hairy.

[Traianvs]

Well from the point of view of the Greeks yes, but the persians and the romans also had 'barbarians', it's all a matter of perspective, besides a barbarian didn't have a negative meaning (in the beginning), it just meant non-greek that's all, not that the people in question was not civilized and so on... later the word got that particular connotation, and we adopted the word as well an example of greek words in our modern germanic languages , Greeks have had an incredible influence like i said before

[Giovanni Wine]

Yup... Greeks and Latin words are largerly used in Germanic languages as well (In this very same post there are at least 6 word with Latin origins).

Not to mention that the Latin alphabet is the very same alphabet used by the Germanic laguages... with the addiction of the "w".

Saluti

[Ned]

Although one could argue that Imperial Rome in the Trajan era was Rome at the height of its power, I beg to differ. Rome seem to accomplish an incredible amount during 1st Century BC during the closing years of the Republic, even while fighting civil wars. I believe the reason for this is that the system encouraged great generals like Pompey and Ceasar to emerge who then competed with one another in extending the empire's frontiers.

The failure to conquer the Germans under Augustus was a failure of leadership, not power. Had Rome then had a field commander like Pompey or Ceasar, Germany would have been toast.

[Arrian]

While I do think the Rome -> America comparison can be made, I think the article stretches the similarities.

Frankly, I think the British Empire was more "Roman" than the US is today. Having been a Roman province themselves, that's not surprising. We are a former colony of a former province of the Roman Empire. It's one more degree of separation.

I don't really buy the whole cultural/economic imperialism argument. Starbucks, McDonalds, etc. are not run by the US government. That just doesn't compare with Roman rule.

The military bases and base rights part was interesting, as I had no idea we had troops in that many countries (though I suspect many of them are small groups of "advisors").

The article is dead-on-balls-accurate with regard to our mythology (Founding Fathers, yadda, yadda).

All in all, a fun read, even if some of it was bollocks.

-Arrian

[Adalbertus]

Giovanni "W"ine, it is addiction to the "w". And it is sometimes difficult to tell which words are taken from latin and which have a common origin. And sometimes words took the other way ...

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Arrian
Frankly, I think the British Empire was more "Roman" than the US is today. Having been a Roman province themselves, that's not surprising.

Only a Roman province geographically. I would hesitate to say that England and more widely Britain is formerly Roman any more than I would say that the US is formerly Iroquois, Cherokee or Sioux.

There is linkage, but not that pervasive.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin


Only a Roman province geographically. I would hesitate to say that England and more widely Britain is formerly Roman any more than I would say that the US is formerly Iroquois, Cherokee or Sioux.

There is linkage, but not that pervasive.

I don't remember the Kings, name, but he was the first to unify England in a common defense against the Vikings. He was educated in Rome. At least, according to British historian on the History Channel, this King was intent on Romanizing England - to essentially restore Roman civiliization in Britain.

The point is that England became re-Romanized to a degree after the Saxon conquests - at least in terms of culture, particularly, religion.

America does have strong links to ancient Rome through England.