What's next?, next war Romanians could be part of

I address here the very first post starting this topic. There is something I honestly don't comprehend in that Web link:
"Statele Unite vor cunoaşte o nouă epocă de aur în cea de-a doua jumătate a secolului XXI." = "The United States will enjoy a new golden age in the second half of the XXIst century."

I lived a third of my life in the US and the bottom line for this country, counting the good things and the bad things, is a downward spiral. To make it very short, there are dozens and dozens of things that have to change in order to return to the former glory, and I do not see a will to change anything, because the approach is that they are perfect in everything. Why would you change anything if you are perfect in everything ?
P.S: I wanted to write this idea into this topic when it started, and I thought it doesn't change anything anyway.

This post has been edited by Florin on June 26, 2011 05:51 pm

You asked this before, when the topic started, and I said you must read the book to understand. I see you don't read it.
After a world war it will be a period of peace and prosperity, like it was in '50es in USA after ww2. This is about that golden age.

You asked this before, when the topic started, and I said you must read the book to understand. I see you don't read it.
After a world war it will be a period of peace and prosperity, like it was in '50es in USA after ww2. This is about that golden age.

I am sincerely sorry that I forgot I addressed this before. I am aging...
I did not read the book, indeed.

If the author assumes that after a world war in the middle of XXIst century we will not get back into the Stone Age (and that is an optimistic scenario), this author is hallucinating. The U.S. never felt remorse for using the A bombs in 1945, and they will shamelessly use them again against enemies not having them, if these enemies cannot be curbed in other ways. The problem is that so many countries have today the A bombs, and a world war without China or Russia is not a world war.
There is a well spread mentality here in the U.S. that wars can solve the internal problems of the country. I hope your author does not see the things in the same way.

Now let me tell you what happened in the 1940's and 1950's and will not happen again. First the intelligent Jewish refugees came in the US and contributed to this country one way or another. Then a wave of Germans arrived and used their intelligence for the benefit of the U.S. Thousands of them were the best scientists in the world, in their field. Alongside with the German immigrants countless other European immigrants arrived and worked hard and used their talent here.

America became superpower as European style society, implementing the European values the best she could. The newly arrived Europeans tried to integrate here, to fit in and be loyal to their adoptive country.
What is happening today, and there are big chances to continue this way, is that by far the biggest slices of immigration are from Latin America, the Caribe, Asia and Africa. These people ostentatiously don't make an attempt to integrate in their new country, and they even keep using their native clothing on the streets of the American cities, like for example the Indian women and many Africans. America cannot function as a "nation" if things continue this way. Is that simple. And by the way, it is not my idea. It happened that the first time I heard it about 10 years ago, when Zbigniew Brzezinski was invited to a TV show.

This post has been edited by Florin on July 04, 2011 10:38 pm

Florin, I don't want to discuss about one book you didn't read. For me is usseless. What do you want, to put here paragraphs and quotas? If you want do analize it, first read it! And the author is not nobody, is CEO at Stratfor, and he knows more about geopolitics and other things than you an I. If you will read it you will find the explanations about what do you put in your previous comment.

Actually that is not true. First of all, this "U.S." that you speak of does not exist. America is not one huge monolith of ideology whereby everyone agrees with everyone on the same issues to the same extent. There is richness of opinion and freedom to express it. Some praise the A-bomb attacks on Japan, some lament it, while others do not care one way or another.

America never used the A-bomb in anger again after 1945. There were and still are plenty of opportunities. Yet they didn't/don't do that. Why? Well, what good is it? If Iraq was "all about oil", what good is a nuked Iraq? All wars tend to be about territorial conquest and all the riches that brings. :-)

America had the chance to use the A-Bomb during the Cuban Missile Crisis. There are great books and movies describing in great detail the circumstance, the details and the actions that shaped and steered that episode. Yes, there were army officials who demanded nuclear strikes. Cooler heads prevailed. That story alone is a clear example that the "U.S." actually "felt remorse for using the A bombs".

Radu

OK, you have a point here. Let see when I will have time for this. . . In my "to do" list, is in row at position 50 or more...
Seriously, I am behind schedule with much more important things.
I read other books, by other smart guys, and they seemed out of touch. But of course, this is not a reason to extend it over something I don't know.

This post has been edited by Florin on July 06, 2011 02:51 pm

Actually that is not true. First of all, this "U.S." that you speak of does not exist. America is not one huge monolith of ideology whereby everyone agrees with everyone on the same issues to the same extent. There is richness of opinion and freedom to express it. Some praise the A-bomb attacks on Japan, some lament it, while others do not care one way or another.
........

There is richness of opinion, but not that much freedom to express it as you may think. Almost daily some public or mass media person is asked to apologize for a statement made in the previous day, and if the apology does not come, it may be the end of career for that person - in addition to be fired from his/her work place.

You are right, opinions are divided regarding the use of A bomb in 1945.
In regard with using the A bomb against those not having it, I heard myself in 1991 at news how the U.S. threatened Iraq with atomic bombs, in case Iraq would use chemical weapons. An "ethical" approach would be to threaten with chemical weapons as retaliation for the other side using chemical weapons.
Also, it is not confirmed, and it may be only a myth flying over Internet, but I read in 2003 arguments that the building of the Telecommunications Ministry in Baghdad was blown up with a "mini" atomic bomb, a new tactical type with an equivalent of "only" 3000 TNT or less. If it is a myth, the best way to kill it is to use a radiation gauge and check if there are any radiations at that location.

This post has been edited by Florin on July 06, 2011 03:14 pm

America is supposed to work as the blueprint for a globalized world, not as just another nation. The EU follows its example.

The Roman Empire was the original blueprint for a globalised world.

America is very similar to the Roman Empire in an amazing multitude of ways ranging from heraldry, military systems/elites, political system, legal system, urbanisation, culture, knoweldge, fashion, trade, creation/control/export of religion etc.

Globalisation is not necessarily a bad thing. There is a lot of good associated with it.
I find it ironic that those who choose to "fight globalisation" depend on means of globalised communication as Internet, Facebook or Twitter to co-ordinate their "battles".
If they were truly "against globalisation", they should have nothing to do with the main tool of globalisation: internet/social media. :-)
"Switch off and wait for my signal."

Radu

The Roman Empire was the original blueprint for a globalised world.

America is very similar to the Roman Empire in an amazing multitude of ways ranging from heraldry, military systems/elites, political system, legal system, urbanisation, culture, knoweldge, fashion, trade, creation/control/export of religion etc.
............................

You are right, in general, regarding the resemblance with the Roman Empire. That includes the energy and time spent on sport and public distraction, and the double standards and despise for anything that was not Roman (today, for what is not American).
The American legal system does not resemble with the Roman legal system. The American legal system is inheritor of the British legal system.
The Roman legal system is followed in continental Europe: France, Germany, Italy, Romania etc. etc. etc.

I always wondered if any of the 1 million citizens living in Rome in 9 AD realized that the defeat incurred by Arminius in Germany was a turning point for the empire. Today some say it was the most important battle in the history of Europe, because it left it divided into Latin and non-Latin areas.
I personally think that September 2001 was a turning point we witnessed during our life span, but I will not live to see what the historians will say 500 years from now.

This post has been edited by Florin on July 07, 2011 07:22 pm

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. In fact the "right to express opinion" is often invoked by offensive people just as they utter nasty stuff. :-)

That is not what I meant when I was talking about "freedom of speech" in America (and anywhere else in the civilised world). I meant "freedom of speech" of the kind that was denied to Romanians before 1989, is still denied in North Korea, Belarus, etc., I meant the kind of "freedom of speech" that allows for open discourse between two disagreeing parties that does not lead to one ending in prison or digging a canal. In fact America experienced that during the "McCarthy Era".

As for the American Law, indeed it is based on English Law, but even so, there is a tangible Latin tint to it when you take into consideration that it still uses terms like "subpoena", "sub rosa", "habeas corpus", "pro bono", etc.

Radu

The main difference between the British / American judicial type system and the Roman type system is that in the Roman system the trial decision is based on a set of printed laws effective at that moment. In the British / American judicial type system, the judge can rule a verdict based on a previous decision taken by another judge in another lawsuit, and that decision is not necessarily linked to a written law. That is why some lawsuits are so important, and they are later called "landmarks" or "historic" or in other words. They are important because once a decision was issued, people having the same interest will hope to win later in another lawsuit, based on that previous favorable decision. And this may not be linked to a written law to support that decision.

In regard with freedom of speech in America, there are 1001 forbidden subjects, gathered in the category "political incorrect". Yes, you will not end digging a ditch, and in 99.9% of cases you will not end in prison, but you will lose your job. If you have money to live, this does not matter. If you need a job to sustain your life, this matters a lot. And if you don't repent, you may not be able to find a job in the same field, so you will have to start all over on a lower level.

This post has been edited by Florin on July 08, 2011 05:41 pm

Yes, I am aware of the concept of "legal precedent". Funny enough, in American law, that has a Latin name too: "stare decisis". While I wholeheartedly agree with your statement that American law is not derived directly from Roman law, it is plainly obvious that they like to use a lot of Latin words.

As for freedom of opinion... with freedom comes responsibility.

Radu

....................
As for freedom of opinion... with freedom comes responsibility.

Radu

It is fascinating how always the Romanians living outside the U.S. seem to know better the realities of this country than the Romanians living in the U.S.
Best regards,
Florin

This post has been edited by Florin on July 10, 2011 04:00 am

Florin, I lived most of my adult life in an English-speaking country that is closely tied with America (I also have relatives there) I have been to America ( as recently as last week:-) ) I have a clear idea of what you are talking about and I can clearly see that you do not see my point. There is no such thing as "absolute freedom" anywhere in the world. You are free to sing hava nagila at a neo-nazi rally, but you pay for it. You are free to deny the holocaust, but do not expect general approval for it. With freedom comes responsibility.
Radu