Will American Soil ever be Invaded?

Do you think that American Soil will ever be invaded by a standing army?
Much like the movie " Red Dawn " where Rusia invades the U.S. and takes control of large parts of it.

I think that if we let our army get to weak that there is a possibility of invasion but unless tactical nukes were used to destroy army bases and storages of weapons, and to make our citizens sick, that there would be no way that an invading army could get verry far into our country. There are too many people with guns that would stand up to them and fight them back.

A standing Army I doubt. At least at this point. Pearl Harbor is the closest invasion we've had. The only way I see it plausible for an inland invasion would be, as you said, if our was to get too weak.

Even if we did get invaded, theres like 4 guns in this counrty for every person, just think of the rednecks from the midwest and all the innercity people with guns. It would take more than an army to invade us. :iceslolan

we were invaded by the japaness during the 2nd world war it was the armys fault and wasn't to talked about bits and pieces are coming out now. My grandfather was up there and one of the handful of people who stopped them from getting to the mainland. *this happened in alaskas chain of islands but still US soil
But if it happens in my life i doubt it i hope it never will. I think we would have a civil war over a big debated topic eg abortion before we had a nother country come in.
If that happened i'd sure as hell grab my guns and see how many I can take out.

Even if we did get invaded, theres like 4 guns in this counrty for every person, just think of the rednecks from the midwest and all the innercity people with guns. It would take more than an army to invade us. :iceslolan


Yeah, And I'd be one of them. With my .243 remington model 700, just waiting.. :smokin:

This question borders on silly. The logistics needed to carry out an invasion of third most populous country in the world is overwhelming when you consider there are no bases of operation within thousands of miles that can reach the US outside of Canada and Mexico. Neither Canada or Mexico have the populations to support a standing army to invade a country this size.

Ya know, sometimes I wonder about some of the people who post on here....

Anyways, that question can't be answered with a "yes" "no" answer because in truth, no one can say for sure. Maybe yes, maybe no. The United States is by no means COMPLETELY immune to any invasion, but I wouldn't say we are without protection against many attempts, should they even take place.

I have thought about this before too.

First of all, like Hyatus said, practically the entire population of the US is an army in itself. Almost everyone has a gun, and if not a gun, they can get ahold of some kind of weapon.

Secondly, Are detection equipment is so advanced, that we would easily detect the huge force needed to invade before they even left their country.

Thirdly, once they were detected, our powerful arsenal would quite possibly eliminate any threat before they could even see our shores.

And finally, no country, no matter how much they hate us, would be stupid enough to attack a country as massive, populated, advanced and popular as the United States. And when i say popular, i mean we would have so many allies against an invasion, it would be hopeless for the invaders.

Unless of course they nuked us first, then ill bet theyd get us...maybe

This question borders on silly. The logistics needed to carry out an invasion of third most populous country in the world is overwhelming when you consider there are no bases of operation within thousands of miles that can reach the US outside of Canada and Mexico. Neither Canada or Mexico have the populations to support a standing army to invade a country this size.

The Russians have bases very close.

The Russians have bases very close.

and we also have bases ready to detect any impending threat, specifically in alaska, if that what your referring to

and we also have bases ready to detect any impending threat, specifically in alaska, if that what your referring to

Have you military experience?

Yes, near Alaska is what I am refering to.

in case u didnt notice our country was invaded on o i think the date was 7-11-01

if it were ever to happen i would feel very very sorry for whatever troops they sent here.

The Russians have bases very close.

Those bases are not equipped to support an invasion of the United States. They do not have the means to transport or supply them. This is straight from one of my Russian colleges who was stationed at Anadyr.

Aside from that fact, the Rissian military does not have the manpower to sustain an invasion of a country nearly twice their population.

The only way I can see an invasion as of now would be like armies of several nations coming together and doing soemthing like Pearl HArbor again were they just have a massive surprise attack and I mean massive.

To add, Powerslide, we were attacked on 9-11-01 but not invaded persay. We're talking about an invasion and taking of land...as of now though, I'd definitely see it as an insane thought.

Cool point Yogs. I imagine during the height of the Cold War the Ruskies were just sitting there primed.

Not that their conscripts would have done very well anyway.

hate to be the one to break the news to eveybody but the U.S. is invaded every day by a standing (and crawling and swimming and jumping and...) army of mexicans!!! Isnt the purpose of an invasion to take over land, disrupt the economy. Sounds like the mexicans to me!

Fuck off.

Didn't the British bomb the White House in 1810? Wouldn't that count as an invasion? Afterall they did make it all the way to the capitol.

Fuck off.
wow> Must be an Illegal Alien that learned English. That or hes banging one.

To put you in your place intelligently and end this stupid dispute, it wasn't Americ that was invaded genious. It was Texas before it was a apart of America so, enough said, right?

And the discussion is on will it be, not has for we know, or most of us it seems, know whether it has or hasn't been invaded. That should cover evertything previously posted...

Wow...I killed my point with typin' errors.....

Wow...I killed my point with typin' errors.....
beat me to it.
You are not putting me in my place because if you knew what the hell i was talking about you would know i am talking about present day. last i checked Texas is part of the United States.
Main Entry: in·va·sion
Pronunciation: in-'vA-zh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English invasioune, from Middle French invasion, from Late Latin invasion-, invasio, from Latin invadere to invade
1 : an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder
2 : the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful

i would say 800,000 illegals a year taking jobs, homes, causing auto accidents with no insurance (happened to me TWICE!!) is a little hurtful wouldnt you say?

i may be wrong on this one, but i dont think that we are talking about an invasion of that second definition okie. I think were talking about the first one of your def's there.

Cuz if it were the second one, couldnt any sort of disease from somewhere else be an invasion too?

Actually well put Kustm...being this is a philosophy forum and I submit to you bringing that up...gently...but if were talkin' that then it's kind of a dead thought 'cause then yeah, of course we can be invaded. Don't bring race into this man...you'll get no where. People do what people do and America allows it, why? Because it's America, land of the free and maybe we ain't so great in everything but we're sure as hell damn well better than most and people that do that, look how many die for it. Yes, people die for invasion but come on, look at this realistically...

i would say 800,000 illegals a year taking jobs, homes, causing auto accidents with no insurance (happened to me TWICE!!) is a little hurtful wouldnt you say?

Well, when you're willing to work for $50 a day, with hazardous pesticides, or picking onions in 100 degree weather - then you can say that they're taking jobs. Causing auto accidents? a legitimate problem, but taking homes? never heard that one before.

and btw, what country are u from , or rather, what is your family heritage? couldnt u call the europeans coming to america an invasion? and if your not european, say your "native american" where did they come from? they crossed the land bridge from russia...so if u want to get technical, anybody and everybody has invaded.

and thats a good point, we are the land of the free...if you like it america, stay here and quit bitchin, if you dont, leave

hate to be the one to break the news to eveybody but the U.S. is invaded every day by a standing (and crawling and swimming and jumping and...) army of mexicans!!! Isnt the purpose of an invasion to take over land, disrupt the economy. Sounds like the mexicans to me!
You know, there are many illegal immigrants who work in this country and actually benefit the economy, illegal or not. Not only that, but if I were a Mexican-American I would be offended by that comment. Many of the illegals that enter the country work for a period of time and return to Mexico with the money they have earned.

Lets put it this way you guys talked about the use of nukes earlier if nukes are used everybody dies. there won't be anything left to invade. Say Russia did decide to invade the states and you guys fired your nukes how many do you think they'd fire then? Both Russia and USA finished, then china comes in, runs the world, and us poor canadians are stuck eating rice and FN cats for the rest of our lives. I dont think it should be an issue of if and how you'd be invaded but how we can all better ourselves in a way that all the people of the world can work as one community, for the good of humanity. If there was an invasion of the united states the world would divide into opposing forces and EVERYONE DIES.

oh you canadians...the chinese wouldnt stand a chance against you guys.

Lets put it this way you guys talked about the use of nukes earlier if nukes are used everybody dies. there won't be anything left to invade. Say Russia did decide to invade the states and you guys fired your nukes how many do you think they'd fire then? Both Russia and USA finished, then china comes in, runs the world, and us poor canadians are stuck eating rice and FN cats for the rest of our lives. I dont think it should be an issue of if and how you'd be invaded but how we can all better ourselves in a way that all the people of the world can work as one community, for the good of humanity. If there was an invasion of the united states the world would divide into opposing forces and EVERYONE DIES.

Idiot.

Chinese don't eat cats. Dogs - rarely. Cats - never.



I can't believe this moronic thread is still active. Better yet, why I'm posting in it again? And lastly, why I'm not locking it is beyond me. :banghead:

Pearl Harbor is the closest invasion we've had.

Didn't the British bomb the White House in 1810? Wouldn't that count as an invasion? Afterall they did make it all the way to the capitol.

There were numerous boarder invasions between the US and the Dominion of Canada during the War of 1812. Most of them centered around the Niagara Peninsula, but there were others that occured in the Thousand Islands region of Eastern Ontario (then called "Upper Canada") and upstate New York, Quebec ("Lower Canada") and the Northeastern States, and I'm pretty sure a few boarder skirmishes also happened between the Michigan/Ontario boarder. The British army attempted to capture Baltimore and New Orleans during the war but were unsuccessful.


The incident 2Stroke reffered to was the British attack on Washington. British forces marched on Washington and after a brief battle on the road (known as the Battle of Bladensburg) the British forces entered Washington and burned the White House and the Capitol. The rest of Washington was saved by a strong rain storm, and the British withdrew having orders not to hold any territory.

That is the biased pro-British and generally accepted account of the attack on Washington. The truth is, the White House was attacked by a small force or Native Canadians allied to the British. The Natives slipped quietly on land from boats and stormed the White House so rapidly that they almost captured the President. I remember reading one amusing account that stated the Natives were so close to catching the President that they found his meal Mrs. Madison had prepared for him still hot, proceeded to sit and eat it, then torched the White House before many new what was happening. The White House got its now famous name when the smoke damage was painted over.

Little known tidbits of history.

Damn LT1, I never knew the Canuks had a SEAL team...j/k. You seem damn knowledgable about world history. America being invaded as of now? It would get REAL messy for the country or countries that tried... I hope Tom Clancy dosen't write a book and give anybody ideas...

...I never knew the Canuks had a SEAL team...j/k

:grinno: lol I'm sorry, but thats funny. :grinyes:

As mentioned by many people, a land invasion these days against the US or really any other leading/advanced nation with a major population & economy would be pointless. You'd accomplish nothing in the first place and really not want to stick around to clean shit up if you succeeded.

I didn't realise the US was the 3rd most populated Nation in the World. Wow - what a jump you have to make to get into the "billion" club with India and China. Didn't even figure Indonesia would be the only other country with over 200 million. Seems the war of the future is going to be fought in cyperspace and through world economies. No more targeting manpower or artillery - it will all be brought down with a bloody keyboard.

invaded perhaps, by an actual army, unlikely..

One thing... at the end of WW2 we had tenative plans to invade the Japanese mainland... and that seemed crazy. If we could plan such a crazy feat, who's to say in some future epic war, another victorious superpower won't come up with a crazy plan to invade the United States, even at the enormous cost. As of now, or the near future, of course we wont be invaded, the US spends more on its military than the next 10 nations combined or something like that. Unfortunate for us Americans, does anyone remeber a little known nation called the Roman Empire?

ok i see

One thing... at the end of WW2 we had tenative plans to invade the Japanese mainland... and that seemed crazy.
That was the plan to make Japan surrender, and it was estimated that we would suffer big losses, so we nuked them instead


Unfortunate for us Americans, does anyone remeber a little known nation called the Roman Empire?

thats a good point except one thing, the Roman Empire was always trying to expand and take over more land, they got too spread out and big, we're powerful, but we aren't trying to take over the world like they were


and about the idea of a present day invasion, there is this concept thats called mutually assured destruction (its why we have more nukes then everyone, and why everyone wants nukes), basically, its the idea that if someone attacks us with nukes, we'll nuke them and we both die so its not good for them to attack us, same goes with us attacking, say, Russia, we would destroy them, but we would be destroyed in return
and dealing with nonnuclear invasion, i'd say it would be impossible for a standing army from any other country today, we have one of the largest, and by far the most advanced army in the world, plus we would have the UN to help us, so basically the invading army would be screwed

If one adds up the 9 next largest armies of the world they still do not egual the US's when they're all combined! I am not afraid of our demise just yet!

If one adds up the 9 next largest armies of the world they still do not egual the US's when they're all combined! I am not afraid of our demise just yet!


Can I ask where the hell you got that fact? Last I checked China was larger than the U.S. military. Granted ours maybe the most powerful, it's not through sheer numbers.

He is absolutely right, CHINA has hte largest standing army... though it is our technology that makes us the mightiest.
As to my WW2 comment, 1 million casualties were estimated, and it probably would have been more like 1.5. Truman had a very difficult decision to make, and we were fortunate the bomb was ready. There was also a coup in the wroks in Japan, had in succeeded, they wouldn't have surrendered, and then who knows what would have happened.
I believe it was under emporer Hadrian that Rome acheived it greatest expance, some 300+ years before its fall, does THIS sound familair, can we say manifest destiny... you can't say Rome was ALWAYS trying to expand, cause it wasn't for the latter half of its existence.
Oh, And the UN is made up of the nations of the WORLD, most of those who hate us. Now I can say that most of that is most likely jealousy, but the UN is crap for the US, but it certainly does not have our back.
In light of the original question, I thought we were talknig strickly of conventional warfare (no-nukes). Who is to say in 50-100 years China is on par w/ the US and then WW3 breaks out, China defeats the US and to finalize this is force to invade with a technologically equal army of 5 to 10 Million into a war torn and ravaged, decimated, United States. Who knows!

Horrfiying, isn't it

Excellent points, you basically got at everything I wanted to but was too lazy to do. I believe the U.S. will fall eventually, every great Civilization has fallen under it's own greed sooner or later.

I just wanted to answer the post #39. There are many similarites. I do personally feel however, that due to the next generation society, and event like the next World War is unlikely... today we are a global economy. Lol, easiest point, America can't be conquered because every computer in the world uses Microsoft software made by an American company. And World War now would disrupt the balance of things.
However, history has been known to repeat itself. I do not think for one moment that this way of life will last forever either. I tend to think that at one point in the far future we will regress into another "Dark Age" the event to cause this I don't know, but if one examines the course of history it is a pattern.

China technically could just send over everyone and I'm sure they'd do a lot of damage. 1 billion people invading. The only true way I see it is in the future and coutries really develop into a lot of megatropolis or something or as of now, there's a sudden unbity for countries hating America and they combine. You know I'm tlaking about...

But someone mentioned the Roman Empire! I'm so happy, 'caus ei forgot. NO one understand that the greatest empire lasted longer than we've been around wn we're braggin'. Whenour age exceeds that greatness, then we can brag all we want, but until then, we're still nothing. No, we're not imperalists, were n i thiiknshould have somewhat stayed that wya, but we do try to control a lot. Why do you think our central military is weak? We're spread out so much w/ all these bases and I'm takin' this from a mag, our central military is weak, no joke. Also, we don't directly conquer but we do lay down our lines into people, spreading democracy...it's easy to say in words.....

This is the dumbest thread, and I haven't yet posted in it even.
The U.S. will have it's day just like what happens to everyone else who craves too much power.

Ok, I mention the Roman Empire becuase any where you look the US is compared to it, simply because of the Metaphor of power. America is a Roman empire in terms of how far its sits above the rest of the world in every aspect and how far its influence reaches. The Roman empire did last a long time this is not in dispute. What is misunderstood is that the Roman empire was NOT the greatest simply because of its military. The Achaemenid (1st Persian) empire had similar military numbers. The Mongol empire was vastly larger. It was there achievements is EVERY category that makes them the greatest in history, similar to America today. And America is not weak, in fact, we spend more on defense then the next six nations combined and the fact that we have bases everywhere is a sign of Imperialism... instead of having a colonial empire to provide us w/ bases we simply have the bases.
And this thread is not stupid if you think it is then dont post here thanx!

Ok, I mention the Roman Empire becuase any where you look the US is compared to it, simply because of the Metaphor of power.

Thats a bit facetious. The Romans controlled and/or influenced the western world for almost a thousand years. I'd say the British empire is the only modern empire that can begin to compare to Romes scope and longevity. :2cents:

Who can say what country will be around in the next hundred years. The very concept of nationalism or nationhood which the world reflects today is a relatively new system in the grand scheme of history - can date it really to the 1789 French Revolution, but it really spread around between 1850 and 1890. So in a sense, the socio-political arrangment of "countries" that defines the entire world today is really only about one hundred years old. Who knows if "countries" will exist in the next hundred years? When is a country not a country? Seems that the trend lately has been to try and remove as many boarders between nations as possible, so people/companies/products can move and work wherever they wish. Nafta is doing it for businesses and production here in North American. In Europe they're trying to go a step further and include people in the equation - boarders get erased when 20 "countries" share the same currency and people for work. Only real thing that has stalled this trend is post 9/11 terrorism. But the trend will probably continue. Heck, you can think of the European Union as the beginning of the United States of Europe. And as Europe becomes more socially & economically united, Canada-US-Mexico (possibly ALL the Americas) will be forced to follow suit.

As for Boss's statement that the US will have its day, would it be the same if at that time the "NEW" United States of America included present day Canada and Mexico - kind of like a tri-citizenship arrangement? Or look at it this way, if the US Federal government one day collapsed and the 50+ individual States continued to exist independantly (or came back together as one or more newly constituted "United Federation of America(s)"), would "America" still exist?

I think it would. To me "America" is more than a centralized political entity. Then again there are those who believe "America" is the constitution. (And you even have those who think "America" is the constitution plus or minus a few amendments!).

But who knows how people 500 years from now would interpret it - for they will be looking at it through the eyes of their own present day socio-economic-political system.

Ok, not to start I fight, but before you call me presumptuous, look at the facts a little more.
I did not make that comparo up, do an Online search, you will see, it has not been since Rome that one nation has sat so far above all the others. This is actually a topic for a paper I want to write for history class abouthe TWO world empires, the Latin Empire and the Anglo-saxon Empire... which America inheritted from Brittain, a smooth and seemless transition, the empire continued w/o notice.
Unfortunately, we are FAR beyond even the Brittish realm of power. The Brittish empire was not w/o it's rivals, WE ARE. Rome did not control the world either, for it had its rivals too... Rome never conquer Germanic lands, and was stopped dead in its tracks in the east by Parthia. So know the facts a little first.
Pax Roma lasted 200 years, only 200 years. Great Brittain has only EXISTEd for 300, yes, there Tricentenial is coming up soon.

I guess I'm saying it's more of a bad thread title. "When and How" would suit it better. Nothing can last forever.
It always starts out great, then something really bad happens. Then the people feel arrogant and cocky and evn up going to far and eventually lead to their demise.
Think of the U.S. as Rome, but in a really cramped period of time. Don't forget that the last few hundred years of the Roman empire were in deep decline.



B.C., Washington, Oregon, and Northern Cali. need to seperate from their country(s) and make there own. :biggrin:

China technically could just send over everyone and I'm sure they'd do a lot of damage. 1 billion people invading.

With what? Junks and rowboats? Fact is, china doesn't have the capability for an amphibious invasion. Even if they did, we'd see them coming a looong way, and we'd be ready to spread some killin. Just think of the beaches of Normandy, except Americans = Germans and Chinese = allies. Mmmhmm.

With what? Junks and rowboats? Fact is, china doesn't have the capability for an amphibious invasion. Even if they did, we'd see them coming a looong way, and we'd be ready to spread some killin. Just think of the beaches of Normandy, except Americans = Germans and Chinese = allies. Mmmhmm.
yep, we'd see them coming probably before they even left their shores, and they'd all be dead or retreating long before they could reach our shores, all we'd have to do is warn them to turn away or face death, then just send a squadron of stealth bombers to decimate those who didn't turn back

Ok, not to start I fight, but before you call me presumptuous, look at the facts a little more.

Well, I didn't say you're presumptuous - I implied your statement about the US being the next Roman Empire must have been without serious intent.

We don't have to worry about starting a fight - I'm not a jerk and from what I gather your other posts are intellectual. I don't mind debating. (Maybe this would be a good topic for another thread? "Greatest Empire since the Roman Empire?").

Anyways, I'm not going to lie and say I read every book and every fact en route to completing a Major in Classical Civilizations, and although its been two years since I received my undergraduate degree I'm pretty confident I know my shit when it comes to ancient Mediterranean history.

You want to talk about "Germanic lands" thats fine with me. Julius Caesar had all of Gaul conquered by the late first century B.C. and Rome held Gaul as a province pretty much until the western empire dissolved some five centuries later. The region of Gaul was basically all of northern and eastern France, up to the Rhine (in present day German territory but this means nothing!). If you were referring to the lands of Germania II & I which lied on the western banks of the Rhine (I don't think you were), Rome did in fact occupy these lands - on a number of occasions for various lengths - and at one point the Roman frontier was actually established east of the Rhine.

I think when you said "Germanic lands" you meant the area east of the Rhine, and you are correct (although somewhat misleading) in saying Rome never "conquered" these lands. Truth is they had no reason to need or want to. I ask you, what is it to conquer? Both in the past and present? Has the United States conquered Iraq? The former Iraqi government and leader is long gone yet US and western personnel continue to die with increasing brutality every day. If conquering Iraq meant the US had to keep soldiers there forever do you think that would happen? The only real way the US is going to conquer Iraq is if it kills every last Iraqi citizen (obviously the innocents don't need to die but to be sure you get all the undesirables you basically are forced to slay them all). Thats is exactly how Rome would have been forced to conquer the barbarians east of the Rhine. Why bother? Rome wanted nothing to do with them. You can think of the history and fall of the Roman Empire revolving around citizenship - who has Roman/provincial citizenship and who wants it. The only ones who originally had Roman citizenship were the people of Rome. Then the rest of the Italian peninsular got citizenship, then eventually the provinces were established and citizenship was granted. During centuries of building a world-wide empire with protective frontiers, Rome was faced with the impossible task of dealing with the barbarians it granted citizenship to within its boarders, and keeping the rest of the worlds barbarians out. Its not like Rome needed or even wanted to "beat" any more barbarian tribes beyond the Rhine, the tribes were the ones who wanted in.

Bottom line: Rome could walk into any "Germanic land" on any given day (and they did) and completely massacre and burn a couple establishments, then the next day they could march into another establishment and encounter heavy resistance and even be halted for a time being.

So what are you saying? That Rome had comparable rivals???? We're talking about an Empire that spanned the entire Mediterranean. An Empire than communicated without telephones and transported armies mostly by foot! So while the Roman's were busy controlling the entire known world and collecting tribute & taxes from far off peoples, there were these tribes and armies outside the frontiers that occasionally tried to break through or stopped the Roman's from where they wanted to march. These rivals you speak of my friend were nothing more than mosquitoes to the Emperor in Rome - who was considered a GOD to all other citizens. You're going to have to cite more than a particular battle or war Rome lost to back up your claim Rome had rivals anywhere near comparable to itself. Especially back in its hay-day.

Which brings me to the dates you mentioned. I'm not going to sit here and say Rome's last emperor was in 476 AD because it means nothing. As mentioned, it was Caesar who really expanded Roman territory and more was added by later emperors. But at the time of Christ's birth, Augustus ruled an Empire thats was arguably at its peak in terms of territory, strength, and social and economic support. The empire saw a new peak during Constantine's reign in the early third century A.D. So even though Rome heavily influenced the region for nearly a thousand years, it is safe to say that for a solid 350 years Rome controlled the entire Mediterranean region with considerable authority. (I missed Pax Roma? If you want to get technical the Roman Empire lasted from 27 B.C. to 476 A.D. - 500 years. The Roman Republic began in 509 B.C. - almost 500 years before that.)

As for the British Empire, who cares how old the present legislative and political arrangement of the British Commonwealth is? Is that how you're dating the British Empire? England's Kings were the ones who started the business. Although the British were late to colonize North America they were still there by the late 1570's. You can somewhat say that Canada was born with the establishment of the Hudson's Bay Company in 1670. Sure Britain had other colonial powers to compete with, but that didn't stop them from colonizing North America, Australia, India, Africa and the Orient. Although technically the Mongol empire controlled the most territory of any empire in history, the British Empire at its peak had without a doubt the most far reaching empire in history. 300 years during its hay-day ... ok I agree.

So what are we arguing about again? How America is without rivals? - or perhaps you meant to say without equivalent rivals?? Don't forget that Russia could still wipe you and I right off the face of the earth if they wanted to. Do you think Russia is afraid of the US? Just because they can't (don't want to) keep up to US foreign intervention anymore or sustain a military on the cold war scale, doesn't mean they couldn't nuke the shit out of any counrty and basically begin the end of the world. America has many rivals my friend. But lets for argument sake affirm that America is the lone superpower (after all it IS but that doesn't mean you could take on the entire world). But if that were the case, how long has America enjoyed being the lone superpower? Its been about 14 years by my watch.

Do you think there will be only one superpower in the world 50 years from now? Will there be any superpower(s) in 50 years. I'd date the US's real era of greatness and influence beginning after WWII - regardless if you split the influence with the Soviets for 45 years. So even though America has 60 years of world influence already under its belt, I'd say its got at least a good 200 more years to go before it ranks up there with the British and Roman Empires. :2cents:

Don't forget that the last few hundred years of the Roman empire were in deep decline.

And that decline was more than anything else social and political, as well as economical. It had really not much to do with military strength as much as it did with Rome's willingness to continue fighting. Again, much like how the Soviets got tired of playing cold war.

DVSLT1, do you have a History Degree? Just want to know, and what is your concetration? I'm going to minor in history and I have read a lot and have a pretty good memory.
Ok, Great Brittain was formed 1707, so anything before that is not Brittish. England, well, England was a nobody until the Armada of 1588, even then, it wasn't a power player until after 1707. The Netherlands, Sweden, France, all these countries has sumpremecy, never ENGLAND, but BRITTAIN did.
The Brittish Empire was the Largest empire in history, but is was a colonial empire not a land empire like the Mongols. British utter supremecy was roughly 100 years, the 19th century, what they refer to as the Victorian age. It was ONLY during this time that it stood a superpower above the others. Ok, a little longer, because they were the most powerful from the Seven Years' War up to WW2. THAT is IT. Rome had no rivals? You need to brush up a little... there was a country right below the Caspian Sea know as Parthia. At about 100 B.C. it had aquired a nice empire for itself. Remeber the First Triumverate (spelling?) well Crassus the third member was killed before the civil war. In 53 B.C. He and his army were slaughtered by the Parthians, this was the first realization by the Romans that they could not conquer the World or expand further to the East. There were other times they tried to conquer Parthia and also failed... the East all the way to the Indus was part of the "World" was it not, these were the hellenistic lands, yet Rome was unable ot go there. Alexander the Great went all the way there, these lands were known to the Greeks, and of course to the Romans, so there were parts of "the World" ooutside their control.
Pax Romana (correction) was the Augustian age, but it only lasted from the reign of Caesar Augustus to Marcus Arellius (spelling?) about 200 years. This was the Roman "Victorian Age". Outside of that they had there share of problems, and Constantine I was a brief interruption of the impending decline. By the latter times there were Germans encroaching on their lands, they were NOT the almighty Rome the once were. Gaul was a Gaelic land not germanic. Rome did not expand further passed the Rhine because she realized it would over extend herself.
To America, if you look up anywhere, we stand a top the World much as Rome did, it terms of culture, technology, economy, and military might. We could be called a Neo-Rome... the entire World is affected by this one country. I'm sorry but even the mighty Brittish Empire was not as far ahead as we are today. We have no Rivals. The country of Russia is hlaf the size (population) of the former Soviet Union and is in shambles. It is not longer a match. Our population is reaching 300 Mil, only two nations larger are India and China. Population says a lot because it represent your potential for economic productivity, taxes, and soldiers. Our GNP is equal to that of the next six nations combined. Just in this fact the Brittish Empire never came close. Our military spending is equal to that of the next six nations combined. The countries with high popualtions like ours, China, India, Indonesia... these nations are so far behind technologically. I mean, no nation comes close to us, don't believe me, look it up. The one nation technologically able, Japan, is defended by America and has barely any military. And America with it's bases spannig the globe is an empire, isn't that what an empire is. Look up everything I have said before you post again. Thanks for the debate.

DVSLT1, do you have a History Degree? Just want to know, and what is your concetration? I'm going to minor in history and I have read a lot and have a pretty good memory.

I have an Honours Bachelor of Arts Degree from the University of Toronto.

I have a Major in Classical Civilizations - which focused on classical myths from ancient sumerian, babylonian, egyptian, greek/roman, Judeo/Christian & muslim, including some far-far eastern/oriental myths; Greece from its earliest beginnings and the Homeric age to its golden age and the beginning of the Hellenistic era; I took an entire year-long course on Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic Age my friend (what did Alexander find in India eh? Elephants, deserts, backwards natives??? Re-read "The Campaigns of Alexander" by Arrian, and you'll see how the Macedonian's believed they had reached the ends of the earth. Thats a big reason why they stopped. To the later Roman's this account was history to them, Arrian himself was a Roman who wrote the book based on the primary accounts of Ptolemy and Aristobulus some 3 centuries later. Read Arrian - then ask yourself why the Roman's would want to do that.); Roman civilization from its earliest beginnings straight through to the Byzantine Empire; Europe 300-800AD dealing with the barbarian successor kingdoms in France, Belgium, the Rhineland, and Switzerland - most notably the Merovingian and Carolingian kingdoms (I've studied the specific history of these Germanic people you speak of buddy - from their humblest & savage beginnings during Roman influence to their development of an actual civilization/administration circa 450BC).

I have a Major in History - which focused on pre-post conquest Latin America, Aztec, Inca, Mayan culture & myth, colonization of Mexico & Brazil, comparing Spanish & Portuguese social, economic, & religious pacification of natives and mixed offspring, colonial revolutions including Mexican revolutions; Europe from about 1789 to post WWII (one third of my history Major looked in depth at European colonization - yes the British were slow and had many powerful competitors, but that DID NOT stop them from taking over half the world my friend! They beat everybody else at the game); Native & "other" American history from first contact to the present, how treaties became ignored, the evolution of white-christian racism towards different so-called "inferior" races (in fact the evolution of racial profiling). In there were elective and other courses such as Psychology, Sociology, Canadian Politics, Personality, history of women (was 1 of 6 guys in a class of 36!), etc...

I also have a Minor in Philosophy - which focused on ancient Greek philosophers (like Thales, Pythagoras, Zeno etc...); Plato, Aristotle, Medieval christian & muslim philosophers; social contract theorists. All the classics including Augustine, Aquinas, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hagel, Mill, Marx, Nietzsche, Descartes, Seneca, Freud, Skinner - including the not too well known but brilliant Islamic philosopher Alfarabi (870-930). Philosophy of Human Sexuality was another course I took (more dudes this time but still better than 2:1 female:male ratio!). My philosophy Minor totally complimented my two history Majors from start to finish - really helps you understand why things were happening/people were thinking they way they were during their time - helps you understand what they believed in.

Rome had no rivals? You need to brush up a little... there was a country right below the Caspian Sea know as Parthia. At about 100 B.C. it had aquired a nice empire for itself...Crassus the third member was killed before the civil war. In 53 B.C. He and his army were slaughtered by the Parthians. this was the first realization by the Romans that they could not conquer the World or expand further to the East. There were other times they tried to conquer Parthia and also failed... the East all the way to the Indus was part of the "World" was it not, these were the hellenistic lands, yet Rome was unable ot go there. Alexander the Great went all the way there, these lands were known to the Greeks, and of course to the Romans, so there were parts of "the World" ooutside their control...

I never said Rome had no rivals dude. I will say there was no empire on their scale to compete with them. NONE. You keep mentioning Parthia. So Rome didn't conquer them. Rome didn't conquer a lot of places. So that means Rome had met its match or the Parthian's had a bigger/better/richer empire??? :rolleyes: I never saw a course offered by the antiquity department that dealt solely with Parthia. If they were so grand why didnt' they invade Rome and take it over eh? Your logic is messed up. (Its like saying the US never succeeded in conquering North Vietnam. Must mean that Vietnam was a HUGE rival for the US. Wow, US must not be that tough if it can't even overtake a tiny little backwards country like North Vietnam!? Well we know thats not the case. Vietnam was an upset for a number of reasons.) And by the way, you're talking about the Roman Republic in 100-53 AD. The Empire technically started in 27 BC. And like I said before, the end of the known world basically meant India, and any riches the Persian Empire may have had were completely eaten up by Alexander's generals and their successor dynasties. What was left for Rome in the east anyways? Ptolemy had the richest of the 3 post-Alexander kingdoms in Egypt(he moved everything there) and Rome swallowed that up after Greece. So they tried a few times to push farther to the Seleucid east and failed. Big deal. This so called "nice" empire of Parthia you speak of was nothing compared to Rome.

Pax Romana (correction) was the Augustian age, but it only lasted from the reign of Caesar Augustus to Marcus Arellius (spelling?) about 200 years. This was the Roman "Victorian Age". Outside of that they had there share of problems, and Constantine I was a brief interruption of the impending decline. By the latter times there were Germans encroaching on their lands, they were NOT the almighty Rome the once were. Gaul was a Gaelic land not germanic. Rome did not expand further passed the Rhine because she realized it would over extend herself.

First of all, Gaul was Frankish! And why do you use a specific modern era like the "Victorian Age" and apply it to antiquity? Buddy, the problems and decline you keep mentioning about Rome were the very same problems and decline the US and every other nation has and will continue to experience from time to time: inflation, unemployment, deficit, natural disaster, disparities in supply & demand, social/religious/political unrest, etc... Its like saying the US in its grand history was in decline in the early 1990's because of a large recession. Thats exacly what you're saying. And so the barbarians east of Gaul (there were no such thing as "Germans" back then - stop watching Gladiator) gave the Romans some shit now and then. Big deal! They were a nuisance man!! NOT a bloody rival. Does the US not have a major nuisance with Mexican's trying to enter illegally into the country? You guys must be in deep decline boy. I'll say it one last time: Rome's problems, decline, etc... throughout its entire history had more to do with social, economic, and political instability than it did with its military strength. Do you think Constantine's revival of the empire had ANYTHING to do with new found military strength??? His revival was a political and spiritual revival of the empire, that got the Romans remembering and proud that they were the masters of the world. And just to clarify, Rome's big mistake was NOT making the Rhine the frontier in Gaul. They already though they had over extended themselves so they pulled back into Gaul. It would have been easier for Rome in the long run to have used the Rhine as a natural boarder to defend - much like it did with success along the Danube.

To America, if you look up anywhere, we stand a top the World much as Rome did, it terms of culture, technology, economy, and military might. We could be called a Neo-Rome... the entire World is affected by this one country... Look up everything I have said before you post again. Thanks for the debate.

There is no dispute that the US is one of the most power countries in terms of economic and military strength, but what do you expect with a trillion dollar debt? But buddy, the entire world is affected by a lot of other countries. When Asian stock markets collapse - YOU and I feel it here in North America. When the Oil tycoons in the middle east cut production, they've got YOU and I at their whim! With Europe becomming ever more economically united, the US is going to have a major economic rival in the future. In fact, I believe capitalism will be the US's downfall. As patriotic and pround as the US is, do you think any of the large domestic or global companies will stick around when the shit hits the fan? Companies are leaving the US and Canada right now to make more money overseas - you think patriotism shows up on quarterly reports? One of these days the US's credit is going to pull out - much like it did for Europe during WWII and went somewhere rosier (to the US!) - and thats the decline everyone should and will worry about.

As for American culture being the height and envy of the world, buddy you have obviously never been any other place that your own State. Go to Europe my friend and you will be amazed - Europe is a fucking party! There is nothing like it that even compares to here. Nothing. Totally different way of life. To many European's, America is a boring place with horrible beer and far too much gun violence. Moreover, Western culture is very boring to eastern peoples. And it is. Ever been to a Sikh wedding? Man do those people know how to party! We've got Indian and Pakistani satelites going up like its out of style here because they can't live with the music, movies, & crappy idols that are on US tv. Western culture is too influenced by TV. Go overseas and you'll see how much more people enjoy life. How nice they dress. How well they eat (and how important it is to close up all the shops for 2 hours in mid afternoon to enjoy a nice big lunch and nap).

I don't need to look up anything you said regarding history - I did that for five years already. And I did it by reading books. You must be a college student if you're getting your sources off the internet (we weren't even allowed to cite internet sources). You want to learn history my friend go to a library - far too much information on the internet is incomplete, abbreviated, generalized, and sometimes even wrong. Its for people who just want to get the basic idea. I don't need to look up US culture because being less than an hour from Niagara Falls I get many US tv stations and I've trevelled and stopped all along the eastern seaboard by car several times for vacation. Although Canadian and American culture & values are in fact very distinct from each other, they are also distincly north american. As far as I'm concerned Canada is just as advanced and prosperous as the US except with a better standard of living, no huge debt, no need for military might, and without all the gun violence (but the last part is sadly changing fast here in the GTA). I can't imagine wanting to live anywhere else than where I do right now. But when I travel to certain foreign places I can't help wonder if I'm really missing out on something.

EDIT: I'm serious about using the library dude. You're not paying thousands of dollars in tuition to learn on a computer are you? (You can do that without paying thousands of dollars). Take advantage of your university or college library man. And keep your ID after you graduate so you can go back.

yep, we'd see them coming probably before they even left their shores, and they'd all be dead or retreating long before they could reach our shores, all we'd have to do is warn them to turn away or face death, then just send a squadron of stealth bombers to decimate those who didn't turn back


The first thing I would to say is: :rolleyes:

The second is, you're overestimating intelligence.

lol, DVS, I don't want a war with you man.
Listen, I know my History, very Well, i've been reading it since I was 10, and there was no niternet then. Ok, Mistake number one, I was refering to Gaul and you said it was Frankish, well, then it would have already been called Frankland, France, whatever... Julius Caesar conquered the GALLICS of GAUL. The Franks came much later.
You say there was on such thing as Germans back then... What do you call the various tribes east of the Rhine that soke Tuetonic laguages, I didn't mean "Germans" as in those from modern "Germany" I meant Tuetonic peoples speaking laguages in the German family, you've never heard of this classification.
I was using a METAPHOR relating the Augustan Age to the Victorian age, is that so wrong? Both are GOLDEN AGES of their respective civilizations.
I'm sorry I cannot think of any other losses to Parthia, but they happened. You pointed out the Indus was recognized as the border of the World, yet Rome only made it as far as Mesopotamia, so they were very much AWARE that they did NOT control the whole World. After Parthia was overthrown the 2nd Persian Empire was still trouble for Rome. These powers are not studied like Rome because there is not that much information on them. If you look it up though, you will see that the east was a thorn in Rome's side.
I wasn't trying to insult you, I really wanted to know what your degree was... but please dont tell me I need to go to the library. I have a VAST knowledge of history, my Western History proffessor told me I was brilliant. Ask me, I know all these dates, I'm not looking at any notes. Just read what I have said, I am not writing fiction, only fact.
Oh, and the US is a power regardless if we are in debt, I didn't SAY we have the best way of Life. Anyone in Europe who is reading this right now is doing so on their PC over the INTERNET using WINDOWS while they are probably eating MCDONALD's and drinking a COKE. Hmmm, we dont rule the World or anything. What, 50 out of 50 of the largest most powerful corporations are American.

The first thing I would to say is: :rolleyes:

The second is, you're overestimating intelligence.

are you saying there's a possibility that our intelligence could miss over a billion people getting on boats to come over here?