Read Empires of Trust.
I may just be some dude on Reddit, but I am not the only person who has compared our Republic to Rome...and this is the comparison I am making.
That our Republic mirrors Rome's after their defeat of the Carthaginians in the Third Punic War. So I find it odd that you can't understand where I arrived at my ideas.
The Roman Republic ground itself to a nub fighting the three Punic Wars. After they won, they held dominion over the entire Mediteranian and also became a naval power.
My point is that our government, those who pilot and set the course for the American Empire inherited an Empire. We did not thrust ourselves against the Scythians, nor did we face a crushing defeat and come to Jesus moment like the Roman Republic did after Cannae.
I am sure you are aware of the Destroyers for Bases Agreement as well as the Tizard Mission. Our country won the lottery and benefited from the "work" of another Empire facing destruction.
My opinion ( I like liver and onions, I would hope you wouldn't question how I arrived at my taste for this meal) is that an Empire inherited by a series of events will not be as managed as well as one aquired by the grind of steel, blood and determination.
And please, just stop. Being a contrarian for the sake of going against the tide belittles you, my poke friend. So, the Founding Fathers grow up reading Cicero and Virgil. They have to transpose the stuff from Latin to Greek just to get into college. They "examined the ancient republics like a dead corpse" and designed our government on the ancient republics and feared a direct democracy. Our government is essentially Roman Republic fan fiction. What other ancient Republic do you think the Founders modeled this country more so then Rome?
The Founders had no idea their little experiment would one day rule the globe. So when a Republic hugely influenced by another Republic attains an empire, how do you imagine my opinion they are similar not hold water? I would understand if you cited some reasons why this was far fetched and not some odd declaration that a mere 2,000 years means anything. Human beings are human beings. I hope you are not going to split hairs and talk about air craft carriers or nuclear weapons...if so, then I will realize I am not speaking to someone who even comprehends the tenor of my opinion.
And here is my sweeping value judgement, why I feel having one country hold the lives of so many people in their hands is fucked--escpecially a country who won their empire by luck and geography.
My family knew we were invading Iraq 7 months before the Bush administration started selling the war. My cousin had to leave his post in Korea and begin training. He warned us, told us he loved us and explained that it was not a matter of if, but when.
I will not go into the things families share with each other. But I only know a small portion of what we did to the civilians of Iraq. And what I know is disgusting. It is not funny when another soldier laughs at another's driving--just use your imagination. You holding hour child's hand and you try to hurry across the street....
It is pure shit when an empire has such power that something like the second Iraq war can happen and there is not another power in the world that could ever challenge the actions of said Empire.
Again, read--(https://www.amazon.com/Empires-Trust-Built-America-Building/dp/0452295459)... but you may have to write him a letter asking how he (Thomas Madden) arrived at his ideas and let him know that he is wrong for his comparison of the Roman Republic and the American Republic.
Of course this can all be based on your assumption that when I mention Rome I mention the Empire and not the Republic that predated and birthed said Empire.
Happy birthday by the way..I missed it last year, but at least I won't this year...
Sulla's first civil war was primarily caused by Italian allies acting up when a tribune who had promised citizenship and reform to allow people in the provinces to have a say in Roman affairs and have Roman citizenship was killed, no? And the conflict led to the Republic no longer being a republic under Sulla.
You're basing an argument on 1/3 of the wars being offensive and the other two? I'm not saying what I'm saying is 100% correct, the book has to be taken with a grain of salt. One could say all of the United States' conflicts, interventions, and wars were done for the protection of the US and her allies, destroying threats as they appear and future threats on the horizon. That doesn't make it correct, that just shifts the justification for the conflict.
>"And as for our map of the empire, a Roman at the time would have strongly denied its accuracy. Rome, he would have insisted, was no empire. It was a state and a people... With the exception of a few places like Veii or Capua, Italy was not under Roman rule. It was made up of free allies. The same went for most of the Greek cities. Even provinces like Sicily or Macedonia, a Roman would insist, were not part of an empire. They were merely administrative arrangements created in order to keep peace and provide order for Rome's friends. To say that Sicilians or Greeks were citizens of a Roman Empire was not only an insult to those proud ad free people, but a lie. Rome was Rome, our Roman would insist. Nothing more. It had organized a powerful coalition of allies, but it was simply first among equals."
Author goes onto compare it to the American Empire, having hundreds of thousands of troops deployed throughout the world, but not actively fighting, rather in the defense/assistance of allies. No one would categorize citizens of Germany, Italy, or Japan as subjects of the American Empire.
Rome went to war to avoid Carthage bringing a war to them. Messana in Sicily asked for protection from both Carthage and Rome against the leader of Sicily. Carthage and Rome both eventually responded, Rome ejected the Carthage garrison and placed their own there. They didn't want Carthage to have an easy path to their peninsula. Both Sicily and Carthage declared war. The addition of Messana to the coalition was not one of expansion/conquest, Rome was asked to come there. They wanted to be able to stop an invasion of Italy from there if it were to occur.
I was interested in the book because it seemed to present an argument that isn't very common. I may be getting the civil war mixed up with another conflict of allies of Rome fighting Rome for citizenship (which the start of Marius/Sulla CW sounds like) and I was only saying that Caesar's actions would have been considered acceptable by that point (to take out perceived threats).
I was only presenting the idea that the book did. If you'd like to read the book, I'd be happy to get you a copy or provide a book store code for you to get it.