The United Empire of America?

Krall · **Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:57 am The United Empire of America?**

To be or not to be? If people arn't carefull, we could become this era's version of the romans, or the germans etc. So whats your veiw eh?

LightningBoy · **Tue Mar 01, 2005 2:55 am**

That's kinda how I see the EU... Maybe its not the U.S. who has to be careful.

webtaz99 · **Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:21 am Re: The United Empire of America?**

Republican_Man · **Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:30 am**

Yep, a country that frees two countries and allows them to have free and democratic elections is an empire, alright.

Krall · **Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:40 am**

... I'm not takeing sides here, this is a Debate have at it, but look at like this, if we arnb't carefull. Other countries might think of us his way. It's a point of vewi, don't be so narrow sighted, some people may like the monarchy in wich they have lived for hundreds of years. Be mindful of the future padawans

Arellia · **Tue Mar 01, 2005 3:57 pm**

I would say that the U.S. would probably implode altogether if for some freak reason we had a president going out and conquering countries. That, and the Chinese would watch us for a while, laugh, and then do away with the United States entirely. I don't see us becoming an empire. Very, very, very unlikely.

Zeke Zabertini · Captain Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 4832

Too bad though. As far as I'm concerned, uniting the world under a single governmental authority is a noble cause. The world could do much worse than the United States.

Jemah · Lieutenant Joined: 04 Mar 2005 Posts: 209

i don't think the countries you speak of are free. with the american presence, there has been an increase in terrorist activity. it's simply adding insult to injury. death by gas chambers under saddam or death by bombs, missiles, and misfire by united states troops.

the administration probably wants an empire, but i don't think they'll get one.

Republican_Man · **Sat Mar 05, 2005 3:51 pm**

Jemah · Lieutenant Joined: 04 Mar 2005 Posts: 209

by attacking a country and then occypying it under false pretenses then claiming that the weapons that they just knew were within the country that they attacked had moved mysteriously into another country which they now wish to attack. sounds pretty close to imperialism to me..

or maybe it's just pure stupidity/dishonesty?

Republican_Man · **Sat Mar 05, 2005 4:04 pm**

Jemah · Lieutenant Joined: 04 Mar 2005 Posts: 209

why is bush the liar? because he did go through with his threat and started a war which has cost thousands of people their lives. his lies have killed.

Republican_Man · **Sat Mar 05, 2005 4:23 pm**

Jemah · Lieutenant Joined: 04 Mar 2005 Posts: 209

Personally, nobody i know believed it. A lie.. hmmmm. Let me think. (Not being sarcastic, i really do have to think for a second). xD I'm probably helping to prove your point. Hahaha. *Thinks*

One - "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11."
Two - "Iraq's �Imminent� Threat"
Three - �We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein ... had either direction or control of 9/11.� Condoleezza Rice, September 16, 2003.
Four - mission accomplished
Five - Iraqi �Sovereignty�
Six - Cost of War & Occupation
Seven - the state of the economy.
Eight - Secretary Rumsfeld proclaimed the war coalition �is larger than the coalition that existed during the Gulf War in 1991.�
Nine - WMDs:
HAD NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION TO GIVE OUT.
�had no . . . strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions� ended.
Iraq failed �to acquire long range delivery systems �to replace inventory exhausted in the Iran/Iraq war.�
The survey group �uncovered no evidence Iraq retained Scud-variant missiles� and �documentation suggests that Iraq did not retain such missiles after 1991.�
Iraq�s nuclear program ended in 1991 following the Gulf War.
�Initial, Saddam chose to conceal his nuclear program in its entirety. . . [but] [a]ggressive UN inspections after Desert Storm forced Saddam to admit the existence of the program and destroy or surrender compenents of the program.�
�Iraq unilaterally destroyed is undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Bagdad resumed production of chemical munitions therafter.�
�With the economy at rock bottom in late 1995 . . . Baghdad [destroyed undeclared stocks of biological weapons] and abandoned its existing BW [biological warfare] program in the belief it constituted a potential embarrassment� which would undercut any ability to lift sanctions.
In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing BW agent product systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons.�

how's that?

Republican_Man · **Sat Mar 05, 2005 4:45 pm**

Jemah · Lieutenant Joined: 04 Mar 2005 Posts: 209

Republican_Man · **Sat Mar 05, 2005 4:55 pm**

Jemah · Lieutenant Joined: 04 Mar 2005 Posts: 209

because the threat was ruled out. an attack in "defense" was made and the reason for doing such a thing was based on a suspicion which turned out to be incorrect. admit it! no wmd's!

Republican_Man · **Sat Mar 05, 2005 5:00 pm**

Jemah · Lieutenant Joined: 04 Mar 2005 Posts: 209

ah, syria. last week it was iran.

Republican_Man · **Sat Mar 05, 2005 5:02 pm**

Jemah · Lieutenant Joined: 04 Mar 2005 Posts: 209

i remember. i cried for those people on 9/11.

i am a pacifist. (as you can probably tell). the hatred of war is nothing i want to exist, especially if it's under a suspicion which has beed (as far as it's officially concerned) proved wrong.

Republican_Man · **Sat Mar 05, 2005 5:10 pm**

Jemah · Lieutenant Joined: 04 Mar 2005 Posts: 209

Founder · **Sat Mar 05, 2005 5:19 pm**