I'm afraid it's much worse than that, Ms Cornett (#18505)
by Don Williams on September 17, 2003 at 11:31 PM

1) I've seen a similar pattern, but with additional details, to the one discussed by Mr Johnson. Some additional parallels between today and the fall of the Roman Republic, which I posted on the historians' H-OIEAHC list last year:
********************
The USA’s situation today has a
number of parallels to that which existed prior to the collapse of the
Roman Republic and it’s replacement by Augustus' veiled dictatorship. (
Note that I’m talking about a 70 year process ­not an overnight event.
) Some analogies are: collapse of a major military competitor and end of a
long period of military competition, the use of the resulting
massive military advantage to establish a global empire, concentration of
wealth and political power, replacement of a citizens army with a long-term
professionals, defeat of a significant Reform Party (Gracchi) , increasing
domination of politics by money not votes, impovishment of the middle
class due to cheap labor and goods imported from abroad, competition for
power among two major factions, use of lawsuits to attack political
opponents, strains introduced by extending a government designed for a
local area to ruling a global empire, a large standing military without a
major opponent, etc.
Source: H-OIEAHC 5/10/2002 post "Why H-OIEAHC should _Arming America_" at http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=lx&list=H-oieahc&user=&pw=&month=0205

2) It is also interesting that this is the first time in US history in which we've had a huge peacetime army unconstrained by an opposing force -- a result of the Cold War. As I noted on
in a 6/3/2002 post on H-OIEAHC:
**********
A look at historical tables of the Army’s personnel strength shows that the
US followed Washington’s advice from the early republic up to the Cold
War. The regular army was kept very small and wartime surges were handled
by militia reserves. (See
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/MMID/M01/sms211r.htm .) While the standing army
was kept small, the size of the militia increased greatly as the US
population rapidly grew.


During the decades of the Cold War, however, the US kept a large standing
army. Although the US military has been reduced since the fall of the
Soviet Union, the military we have today is still sized to enforce order in
a global empire—not to defend the homeland. The US defense budget is
roughly $393 billion ­greater than the combined budgets of the next 25
largest military powers. Both major allies (Germany, Japan,UK) and major
opponents (Russia, China) only spend on the order of $20-$60 billion:
http://www.cdi.org/issues/wme/spendersFY03.html


Today’s situation differs from the Cold War in that there is nothing to
counterweight,divert and fix the enormous power of the Executive Branch.


Today’s professional military is probably the most virtuous and loyal group
in our society ­but it is becoming estranged from society since the end of
the civilian draft. Some professional military officers have commented on
this in recent years --see
http://carlisle-http://www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/1992/dunlap.htm and
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/NRA.htm



During the Cold War, it was necessary for Congress to give the Executive
Branch enormous resources and free rein. Today, however, Congress should
be reasserting it’s primacy but is having trouble doing so. For example,
the Executive Branch’s secrets are supposed to be available to the House
and Senate Committees which oversee Intelligence. Yet in 1996, the
Clinton Administration asserted that personnel with high level security
clearances (i.e., for “Sensitive Compartment Information” ) could not
report concerns or crimes to Congress ­not even to the Intelligence
Committees -- without permission from an Executive Branch official. See
the background to the INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT
OF 1998 at
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/5?cp105:./temp/~cp105L0Of:e27603:&&sid=fO0L01pctennozirevtsaelihp1111loo&&report=hr747p1.105&&sel=TOC_27602&&previous_query=&&xform_type=100&&hold_doc_count=8&&level=3&&variant=yes&&item_number=5&&bool=n&
(cut and paste this URL into your browser’s address line. )

Afraid it's far BETTER than that, Ms. Cornett (#18633)
by Elia Markell on September 19, 2003 at 2:55 PM

Couple of things, Barb.

Supreme Court COUP? Is it really the case that you and your side are going to go all the way to 2004 with this delusion. Because if so, I am sure glad. No one is going to unelect any President on the basis of this sort of resentment. American pragmatism has functioned flawlessly in every election I am aware of in this regard anyway -- people vote on the basis of what they expect to happen, not what did happen.

As for specifics, the Supreme Court overruled the Florida Supreme Court, which had overruled just about every other court and agency. SEVEN, not five, Supremes found Fla's court in violation of equal protection. Two of them thought another week would be fine for recounting votes YET again. The others wisely (in light of the months-long recounts that were conducted) concluded time had run out. If you think you can spin this into a COUP, you have been watching too many reruns of the second year of "24," where fans referred to that bizarre plot as the Koo-koo Coup. Be my guest. W will laugh all the way to the Electoral College Ball.

Then there's that bit of yours about an "illegal holocaust against Iraq." Do you have any idea how absurd you sound? Can you even imagine what most Iraqis would say to you if they heard you utter such absurdities? Here, read this account by Johann Hari (NOT a conservative) on what her Iraqi friends have told her about their incredibly positive and hopeful attitudes (as long as your side does not muck things up for them).

http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=235

Read it. Seriously. And try to imagine these people talking to you about the "illegal holocaust" against them. By the way, what exactly would a legal holocaust be?

I really can't go on with this, because believe it or not your hyperbole only intensifies from these two items on. All I can say is, that I am at least with you all the way if you think ABC should be made to pay for those WMDs it has. Go girl.