From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Date: Thu Jan 23 2003 - 07:14:55 MST
D. Broderick stated:
<<
> Why did Rome still have troops throughout the rich Empire?
>
> Damien Broderick
> [surely it *can't* be that simple]
> [no no no]
>
My understanding of history is that Rome was a fairly, horrible empire that
was great at building roads and organizing laws to further its interests.
Rome essentially raided the Mediterranean basin; and thus, furthered the
development of Christianity, by making life so economically bare for the
indigenous people, that they sought refuge in religious fantasy.
Nobody is suffering because the USA slurps all the goodies from them. Most
countries seem to benefit by American economic dynamism, rather then suffer
from it. My contention is that europe, especially, is too cheap to fend for
themselves. If they had wanted out of the military aspects of NATO, the
european governments could have done what Charles De Gaul did in 1966, and
withdrew. So much the better.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:02 MST