# FROM REPUBLIC TO EMPIRE

Category: Let's talk

## Post 1 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Saturday, 06-Dec-2014 11:01:46

CHALLENGE: who can answer this VERY SIMPLE, CONCISE QUESTION: who's BARRY (I'm DEFINITELY NOT SURE of the spelling of his last name) SOTORRO?

## Post 2 by LeoGuardian (You mean there is something outside of this room with my computer in it?) on Monday, 08-Dec-2014 12:17:30

The mythical Barry Sotoro is an urban legend&LT;/a where Barack Obama is alleged to be a foreign student at Columbia University. The above link points to an article on Snopes.com.
Here's the text of the article from Snopes:

> Card Trick
> Claim: A 1981 Columbia University student ID card identifies Barack Obama as a foreign student named Barry Soetoro.
> FALSE
> Example: [Collected via e-mail, February 2012]
> An e-mail is now being circulated which shows a picture of Obama's Columbia ID card, with his picture and the name Barry Soetoro, and at the bottom is printed FOREIGN STUDENT.
> ANY RESEARCH ON THIS? Could this be the reason his "classmates" don't remember him, or why his records can't be found? Perhaps he was not even "Barack Obama" at the time!
> Origins: Numerous rumors have been circulated over the years claiming that Barack Obama attended college in the United States as a foreign student and/or under the name Barry Soetoro (the latter reflecting the surname of his Indonesian stepfather), evidence which would supposedly demonstrate that at some point in his life Barack Obama was not a U.S. citizen and is therefore ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States. The image displayed here of a purported 1981 Columbia University student ID card identifying Barack Obama as a "foreign student" named "Barry Soetoro" is yet another entry in this vein.
> However, the ID card pictured above is not a real Columbia University student ID issued to Barack Obama (under any name) in 1981; it's simply an altered version of a Columbia University ID card issued to another student in 1998:
> Aditionally, the pictured card couldn't possibly have have been a Columbia University student ID issued to Barack Obama in 1981, as the digital ID card format it uses wasn't introduced at Columbia until 1996.
> Finally, the pictured ID card is obviously a forgery, as the photograph it bears is not a picture of a 20-year-old Barack Obama from 1981; it's a picture taken several years later, during or shortly after Barack Obama's time at Harvard Law School (1988-1991).

## Post 3 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Tuesday, 09-Dec-2014 8:15:57

Of COURSE, in THIS topic, I'll post, as I've done in RECENT TOPIC POSTS that I've created, the following:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLtfZcSCyYFN2SANwBfwRfpzjwhBHHTRLe
HOPEFULLY, I'll have a DIRECT RESPONSE to POST 2 at whichever point, but in the MEANTIME, JUST KNOW that the US, ESPECIALLY, is DEFINITELY on a SPIRALED-OUT-OF-CONTROL DOWNFALL, and ABSOLUTELY NO POLITICAL SOLUTION, WHATSOEVER, EXISTS, NOR WILL IT EVER.

## Post 4 by LeoGuardian (You mean there is something outside of this room with my computer in it?) on Tuesday, 09-Dec-2014 12:22:30

No doubt the U.S. will at some point cease to be an empire. The UK is no longer the formidable empire it once was. There are quite a few rational reasons for how and why we may end up in that situation sooner rather than later. But we've been hearing about this downward spiral since the 1970s. I understand many have apocalyptic fantasies, the entire SHTF movement, zombie apocalypse movement, and similar groups.
However, here are a couple reasons why the U.S. may cease to be an empire soon. Sorry, they're just not as titillating tickle-your-fancy, group-othering fun as what the Christians typically posit:
One major downfall of the Roman empire was its borders. Rome was spread so thin that it could not keep up militarily with all its conquests. It couldn't defend its borders properly, and ultimately had to start pulling out of places it had conquered.
In the modern era, the "borders" look quite different: the West has drawn and redrawn the Middle East and Africa to such a degree that we have forced neighboring nation states into one nation -- see Iraq as an example, google Kurdistan and check that out.
Then you have our economic situation, big bank bail-outs like we saw in 2008, global international corporations who reap the benefits of U.S. citizenship but have no loyalty to their home country and economically destabilize local economies all the time, using the evangelical Christian church as their priestly despotic spokesperson.
Sounds sort of like Spain and Portugal in the 1500s, wealthy empires, who were in such a fever pitch to get gold from the new world that they sacrirficed and destabilized the local economies. The Spanish and Portuguese crowns had a mercantile system similar to that of England: corporations who took financing from the Crown in order to invest in the new world to hopefully get a profit.
There's nothing wrong with global capital investments, but if the home port's economies get destabilized in the process, that's a good way to lose an empire.
Nothing wrong with military protection of global interests, all powers do, and any power that succeeds the U.S. is going to do likewise. However, the more you spread out your resources, on the back of an increasingly unstable economy, the less effective you're going to be.
I know your preachers, probably Keller, would like to tell you it's entitlements that are killing the economy, and if we would only stop giving entitlements to all those fereigners we could stabilize ourselves. Except, of course, that simply isn't true: People who are here illegally cannot receive government benefits, although they can pay taxes. Most of your benefits are taken by white churchgoing folk. Which may be an answer to the question why Bush, your man, increased entitlements spending more than any President in recent history, in 2003.
Oh, and when we stop being an empire, you're probably going to be disappointed and find the results rather anticlimactic. You won't find all systems shut down, FEMA camps loaded with people, gunfights in the streets, and everything else you usually hear in your pews. Unless we're conquered, statistically unlikely at this point, what will probably happen is China and India and a few other nations will simply lead the way in the sciences, manage their investments better than we do, and behave with greater prudence RE: where they extend their military advantages. These societies are at least 5,000 years old. The West as we know it is relatively young, and the U.S. in particular is still a baby. maybe a teenager.
While there are spectacular ends of empire in the past, empires like Rome for instance, most empires simply stop being so powerful, lose advantages in various arenas where they had formerly led, and others take their place.
If you really wanted to keep the U.S. front and center, you would do as a real conservative, Dwight D. Eisenhour did in the 1950s: invest in the sciences and engineering. Instead, the modern fundamentalist Christian-led Right can't ever be satisfied with how much scientific investiment it cuts, or how much science education it takes from the classrooms. Why don't you fundies just walk over to Asia, split our title deed, and hand out the parts to the various nations there? Because that is in fact what you all are doing.

## Post 5 by Voyager (I just keep on posting!) on Tuesday, 09-Dec-2014 14:03:22

Why do you even bother answering him?

## Post 6 by LeoGuardian (You mean there is something outside of this room with my computer in it?) on Tuesday, 09-Dec-2014 14:31:01

I answer his questions for the sake of the curious, peple who are on the fence about things. People who may have been raised from the cradle with these similar notions, but are now beginning to question things. Being a questioner under those circumstances tends to be a pretty precarious position.
Also, lots of the arguments sound really smart, but are missing data and connections. The apocalyptic fantasy is real, even for some people who know it's just a fantasy but are trying to break away from it.
Also, if someone comes along and continually, and credibly, debunks these claims, people will start to question why it is so important they be lied to. They might ultimately find the writings of people like Constantine who speak volumes on why deception for the cause of Christ is a valid vehicle.
I've got good reasons, actually, and they're not just to trash the original poster or play a hand at the drunken troll.
And, for better or worse, such posts are indexable on search engines and will be found years later.

## Post 7 by blbobby (Ooo you're gona like this!) on Tuesday, 09-Dec-2014 18:40:02

And to think I almost skipped this topic.
mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally, you continue to post this end-times misinformation.
Thanks Leo for a well thought out response.
I haven't heard of this ploy, but will now know to respond when I do.
Thanks again.
Bob

## Post 8 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Friday, 12-Dec-2014 8:18:34

The answer's VERY SIMPLE: the ROOT ESTABLISHMENT of the US as the VERY REPUBLIC that we COULD'VE/SHOULD'VE REMAINED AS was a TOTALLY CHRIST-CENTERED BASIS of MORALS and VALUES, and it was ONLY as long as WE, as a NATION, were to have CONTINUED to ABIDE by THESE, ALONE, that we would've CERTAINLY BEEN SPARED the UTTER TYRANNY that WE, and WE, ALONE, have WILLFULLY ALLOWED OURSELVES, due to our UTTER/UNREPENTANT DISOBEDIENCE against OUR CREATOR, to be SAVAGELY THRUST into.--TO BE CONTINUED

## Post 9 by LeoGuardian (You mean there is something outside of this room with my computer in it?) on Friday, 12-Dec-2014 12:32:04

I'm only going to say this: Anybody who is remotely urious, PM me and I'll take the time to answer historically RE: the alleged theocracy of the founding of this nation.
In the meantime, Google Thomas Jefferson's letters to his nephew and see if his views on the Bible would be considered Christian at all.
Google the Treaty of Tripole.
Search on Youtube for Porky Pig Pledge of allegiance 1939. See if there is an "Under god" in it.
Terrance here is quoting from sources who responded, during the 1950s, to the Red Scare, where according to Joseph McCarthy and kind, the war was between God's children and communist atheists.
The reason this is, and was, fallacious is pretty straightforward: the communists of the Soviet Union could be said to be Stalinists, anot the atheists you may know of from here. Stalin would as easily execute a modern atheist as he would a Christian. The reason was, he as a dictator was looking for absolute conformity. In fact, one could nearly view the Soviet system as uniquely religious: a promise of the "revolution being complete", a sort of fairyland where there would be no need for government controls, and everyone would be all happy and communal. But in the meantime, they must fight for it, with good Christian self-denial and good Christian war motifs, figurative and literal.
So the McCarthyists who gave birth to the modern Christian Right have been entirely and foundationally inaccurate of their portrayals.
Anyone who's curious can look this up, but I'm happy to respond to anyone who sends a message or posits a question on this thread.
Meanwhile, I also have a proposition for any Religious Right Christian who will stand up to it: A formal debate on anything this guy has brought up RE: America being a Christian nation, or any of the OP's other apocalyptic pronouncements. I won't engage RE: any of Bill Keller's rambly reposts, for theologist I am not, and apparently no Christian on here has succesffuly debunked any of it except Blind_Guardian, whose sect Bill Keller undermines.
So, anyone who wants, we'll take on one of the AmeriChristian political topics, in a formal manner: Each in a post state their position as opening argument, each present sources, to back up their argument, and each rebut the other's argument.
I propose this for the sake of the curious, the potentially wooed, and for the fence sitters. For my part, I don't pretend to be an expert, nor do I make any outlandish promises: only that I will take my time, present my material carefully, and exercise due consideration. I don't believe I can change minds, but the facts of the situation certainly can undermine preconceived ideas.
Oh, and the OP is a notable exception to my offer, as he clearly can't perform up to the task.

## Post 10 by BryanP22 (Novice theriminist) on Friday, 12-Dec-2014 13:19:51

Well said Leo. And contrary to a lot of people's beliefs "under god" wasn't even added to the pledge until sixty years ago. So the notion that we're a Christian nation is BS.

## Post 11 by LeoGuardian (You mean there is something outside of this room with my computer in it?) on Friday, 12-Dec-2014 14:00:18

I am willing to set forth and prove it in a semi formal debate scenario, similar to what is exercised on other, usually atheist, forums. I am willing to set forth rational arguments, and hear rational arguments from the other side, for any believer who wishes to step forward. You won't get names and ad hominem, and while I am not a scholar by any means, I will do my level best.
This side of the "under God" debate has set forth the challenge, let us see what the other side brings. For the childlike among us, I state that yes, I do say "under god" when reciting the pledge, even though I see no evidence for a god. That is because, unlike many on the other side of the debate, I acknowledge the humanity of those who do claim it, often in ignorance of its historicity. I'm not even sure we should remove it now. I have my reasons for that statement, which may well not pass muster with some on my side, but I think we sperhaps should keep it. And we should teach how it came to be, keep it as a monumental testament to the fear culture of the 1950s, to deception, even well-meaning deception, and also to the many people who feared for their lives during that time, feared enough that they constructed bomb shelters for their families in the event that the other side of the cold war pressed the button, Interestingly enough, families in the Soviet had the same concerns, if not the resources with which to prepare.
But the original offer still stands. Step up by starting your topic or responding in this thread and we can agree on terms if mine aren't to your liking.

## Post 12 by BryanP22 (Novice theriminist) on Monday, 15-Dec-2014 23:35:54

If I say anything I say under Canada. LOL.

## Post 13 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Tuesday, 16-Dec-2014 8:07:03

CONTINUING from my LAST POST: as I said: being that WE, as a NATION, HAD been OFFICIALLY ESTABLISHED as a GOD-FEARING-CHRISTIAN NATION, where and when did we go wrong? WELL, I'm CERTAINLY UNSURE about WHEN we DID, BUT as far as WHERE, meaning HOW, which CERTAINLY could've meant that there might've been OTHER causes PRIOR, as well as AFTER the VERY FIRST CAUSE that I'll mention, that don't come to mind, for NOW, that led us to where we are, CURRENTLY, as things continue to INCURABLY WORSTEN, along with PRAYER-REMOVAL from SCHOOLS, ENTIRELY, the FULL-EMBRACING (BRAZENLY) of IDOLATRY of ALL FORMS, the LEGALIZATION of MURDERING UNBORN BABIES, the LEGALIZATION of SAME-SEX MARRIAGES, PASTORS who were CALLED to the DUTY of PROTECTING the sheep that are, instead of FEEDING, are FLEECING (conning their members out of money to finance their OWN personal greed) the sheep, and/or delivering doctrine that's ENTIRELY ECCUMENICAL, straying as FAR AWAY from GOD'S WORD of ABSOLUTE TRUTH as one could ACTUALLY DARE to go, etc., etc.--TO BE CONTINUED

## Post 14 by LeoGuardian (You mean there is something outside of this room with my computer in it?) on Tuesday, 16-Dec-2014 14:58:21

What do you mean by ecumenical? That's just a word fundagelicals throw around as a name to call churches they don't like, it seems.
Hmm: Christian Origins:
- Treaty of Tripole
- Thomas Jefferson's letters to his nephew
- writings of Alexander Hamilton
.. and many more.
My offer still stands, to any unecumenical, I guess is it?, fundamentalist Christian with a post-McCarthyan viewpoint on America as a Christian nation ... for a semi formal debate on the issue. You chicken shits won't come forward, will you? You want to argue with some other atheists who will use belittling language so you can run back to your friends and claim persecution. I make a decent offer to a semi formal debate, which will mean you have to substantiate your claims, as will I. You're the ones want converts, not me. If you could substantiate your claims, perhaps you could keep people in and make new ones. It's not McCarthy's world, and rhetoric simply isn't going to be enough. I should say, rhetoridc and fear mongering. If what you have is so incredibly powerful you need a constitutional amendment just for you, tax-exempt status just for your organizations, and a political party in the U.S. just to uphold your sanctity, then clearly you should be able to stake, and back up, your claims in a debate format, thereby convincing the masses that we are wrong and you're right, McCarthy was right, the Venezuelan overthrow for United Fruit Company was right, and so on. Come on out and play, let's do it.

## Post 15 by BryanP22 (Novice theriminist) on Wednesday, 17-Dec-2014 17:53:24

The Treaty of Tripoli just to give one example makes it clear that this was not and is not a Christian nation. But obviously the original poster chose to misread those parts or miss them altogether in the same manner as my ex girlfriend from fifteen years ago. She also labors under the inaccurate view that this was always a Christophercist nation.

## Post 16 by LeoGuardian (You mean there is something outside of this room with my computer in it?) on Wednesday, 17-Dec-2014 17:56:18

I will continue to put forth the challenge every time a RepubliChristian topic comes up: A semiformal debate in its own thread RE: that particular issue. In this case it would be: Was the United States founded as a Christian nation? The next thing they bring up, who knows what it'll be.

## Post 17 by mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Thursday, 18-Dec-2014 7:48:59

First of all, it's VERY SIMPLE: I can't "CONVERT" ANYONE--ONLY JESUS, HIMSELF, can--but ABSOLUTELY NO NEED to WORRY: HE WON'T, NOR WILL HE EVER, convert you, AS LONG as you don't want HIM to, regardless of what I or ANYONE ELSE tells you, concerning HIS LOVE, GRACE and MERCY that HE has for ALL of us. SECOND, churches that are "ECCUMENICAL" are those that preach/teach ANY OTHER DOCTRINE that either PARTIALLY or COMPLETELY DEVIATES from the ENTIRE TRUTH of GOD'S INNERRENT WORD, as well as the WHOLE COUNCIL of GOD, meaning that NOT ONLY is GOD a GOD of LOVE, GRACE and MERCY, HE'S also a JUST GOD, who has ABSOLUTELY 0 TOLERANCE for sin, TOTALLY EXPOSING it for ALL that it IS, and COMPLETELY DEFINING in FULL CLARITY, the VERY PENALTY for sin, AS WELL AS the EQUALLY-CLEARLY-DEFINED ESCAPE PLAN from such penalty, since GOD'S DESIRE'S that ALL would be saved, and NONE would be lost for ALL ETERNITY, but UNFORTUNATELY, it's NEVER going to be that way. CHURCHES that are ecumenical, which there are COUNTLESS EXAMPLES of such, ranging from MINIMAL to MAXIMAL, as far as "EXTREME" is concerned, in NO SPECIFIC ORDER, would be the METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCHES, which are those churches that ordain those who are LGBT as pastors, the MORMAN churches, MASONIC temples, etc., etc.--and like I already SAID, NOT ALL are as EQUALLY EXTREME, and believe it or NOT, there are countless so-called "CHRISTIAN" churches that are ecumenical--this is NEVER to say that those churches that are NON-ECCUMENICAL are PERFECT, therefore, BETTER THAN those that AREN'T, because the ONLY TRUE NON-ECCUMENICAL CHURCH, ITSELF, is the ONE/ONLY BODY of CHRIST, made up of TOTALLY IMPERFECT/UNWORTHY PEOPLE, such as you and I.

## Post 18 by BryanP22 (Novice theriminist) on Thursday, 18-Dec-2014 12:35:20

A ramble we've all heard a thousand times before. Andif god's word was really inerrant then why has it been able to be altered so many times over the centuries? That's just one of the many questionsI've never gotten a satisfactory answer to.

## Post 19 by LeoGuardian (You mean there is something outside of this room with my computer in it?) on Thursday, 18-Dec-2014 15:28:36

Bryan and others:
If you're asking to ask, and not just to stir something with the evangelical Christians, I challenge you to read "A History of God" and "A Battle For God," both books available on Bard, and both by Karen Armstrong, a former nun. The answers are out there as to where the Bible's books came from, the edits, and the history behind the mythology. But it's often people who were in and are now out, to whom you should look for these responses. From what I read, Karen Armstrong is still some kind of theist, she is not atheist like Dan Barker, Frank Price or John Loftus, all three great authors for which you'll need Bookshare or Audible or Kindle / iBooks / some other source to read. Bard is scarce on skeptical literature while every other day another version of chicken soup for the soul comes out.
So start with the Karen Armstrong books, they're pretty heavy reading. So to break in you may want to start with "A Short History of Myth" by Karen Armstrong.
The answers are out there if you're looking, if your questions are I'm prepared to help you find. I had to do so for myself in order to stop the bleeding / cognitive dissonance that was taking its toll. So since it's on Bard if you're in the U.S., start with Karen Armstrong. "A History of God" describes the Yahweh cult from its inception among the Canaanite tribes through the Babylonian empire / writing of the old testament and onward. It describes the differences between the Christian and Jewish versions also.
"A Battle For God" describes the rise of modern fundamentalism, especially in America.
Hers are pretty scholarly, as are John Loftus's. For a less scholarly, more of a journalistic look at modern fundamentalism, check out Jeff Charlet's books, though if you were wraised around evangelicals you may be tempted to put your fist through the wall on account of the trickery at play. I'd recommend "The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism Behind American Power."
Through the above mentioned books you can dissect and understand Christianity in all its partws, if not all the nuance, all its effects / the power structures who use it.
I'm gonna make one more recommendation, and I don't know if it's still free or if you now have to buy it for a dollar or two:
Go to DanCarlin.com and look under Hardcore History for an episode called "Thor's Angels." From a general audience viewpoint, I think he does a great job of explaining how Christianity was brought to western Europe, namely Clovis and Charlemagne. He has a way of communicating history in an engaging and well-rounded sense. Carlin, for screen reader voice users, is spelled c a r l I n.
Anyway, I've put a lot here, but this post isn't going anywhere, so you can refer back to it. I know if you're blind the publishing houses are quick to trot out the theistic and self help literature, but if you really want to find out answers now, there's more available to us from the skeptical side. Not enough on Bard, in my opinion. However, what's on Bard should get you started: The Karen Armstrong books and the Jeff Charlet books.
If you wanted an answer whether or not a Dell computer was a great buy, you would not go to Dell would you? Wouldn't you go to an independent source? Someone who has taken the hard look that nobody with an investment in the source can? You would go to an independent source like Consumer Reports. Well, most of the good skeptical literature available is your consumer reports on theism, which in North America means fundamentalist evangelical Christianity, in Saudi Arabia means fundamentalist Islam, and Iraq means Isis, if something doesn't quit over there.
What Isis is doing to Iraq was done to Europe by Clovis and Charlemagne, propped up by the cultures and religions from the East. And that's the reason your family and acquaintances / friends are evangelicals today. If Charlemagne hadn't executed 15,000 Saxon religious leaders in a single day, among many other things, Christianity would not have taken hold in Western Europe. Your modern apologists talk about Christian martyrs: stop and think. The Saxon religious leaders who were executed for refusing to convert to Christianity are not called martyrs, because the Saxon religions don't hold the same political power and sway, don't own political parties in the U.S., or own oil fields and industrial complexes, as the Abrahamic faiths do.
Gods are either propped up by existing political powerfuls, lie in ruins with the societies that were vanquished, or lie in state in a historical museum for others to admire. Any questions?

## Post 20 by AndrewB (Generic Zoner) on Thursday, 18-Dec-2014 19:44:59

This was so funny to read do i dare ask the question how do you know your religion is
right and not Islam or hinduism 99% of people think its the one they just so happened
to have been indoctrinated by as a child
america wasn't founded on christian principles it was founded on western ideals
(european origins) over the centuries christianity has changed just like it is doing now
public ideals have changed and the religion of christianity has adapted take
homosexuality the church hated it and because public ideals have changed so has
christianity and now they don't condemn homosexuality

## Post 21 by BryanP22 (Novice theriminist) on Thursday, 25-Dec-2014 21:21:13

Sure they do, all the time.

## Post 22 by daigonite (the Zone BBS remains forever my home page) on Thursday, 12-Feb-2015 18:10:56

Off topic but looks like someone screwed up the URL tags lol

## Post 23 by Grand_Admiral_Thrawn (Veteran Zoner) on Saturday, 07-Mar-2015 19:05:43

First of all, this country was never founded as a Christian nation and anyone who is saying that does not understand the complex history this country is based on.
Most of the founders were maysons, and belonged to a diest philosophy--essentially for those of you who don't know, that means they believed that a creator made the world and then left it to its own devices.
Secondly, as to point out what the US did wrong?
I can guarantee you, gay marriage and abortions are minor issues in comparison with other stuff you could have ppointed out.
The arms trade anyone?
But no, you're so closed minded, that you only see the wrongs you want to see.
Oh, and by the way, I've heard Karen Armstrong has done a great book on Islamic history too, though can't comment on it since I've never read it.
Lastly.
I will say this.
I do believe the US will collapse but not for any dumb and unfounded reason--there is too much fear-mongering crap, most of it backed up by nice cashflows into someone or some else's treasury box, that sarrounds the end times/end of the world or whatever you want to call it.
You want to talk about pastors doing wrong? What about all those so-called ministries that talk about the end time and spread lies, fear and hatred?
I'm a theist by the way--so don't even come at me saying I'm some sort of atheist because I'm not.
Now for the last point.
The US is losing control of the economy, and completely losing control of its own intelligence agency projects.
Corporations have taken over the financial sector, and the financial/technical sector is now become the 2 most powerful sectors and lobbys (other then the Jewish lobby that still retains its power.)
Economically, all production has moved to Asia, most of it to China.
As far as its pet projects, the CIA lost control of Bin Laden, it lost control of Bluebird, and/or Mockingbird, and it lost control of the Pakistan Intelligence, which is the people they were giving weapons to who now seem to be funding groups like the Taliban.
Oh yeah, and I should add they supported the Islamic Brotherhood to take out Mubarak and then realized their mistake.
If the Egyptians hadn't rebelled and taken the Islamic Brotherhood out, Egypt too would be in a fix--a worse fix anyway because from what I understand that country is still in a fix.
So if, and most likely when, the US collapses, it'll be purely for political and economic reasons and for nothing else.