 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / General Topics / February 2008IRAQ: Even an average ROMAN GENERAL would have subdued the country
Even 2,000 years ago without modern weapons in five years Iraq would have been under complete Roman control. Yet today with all the military might in the world, we are fighting to a draw. VERY SAD! > Even 2,000 years ago without modern weapons in five years Iraq would > have been under complete Roman control. Yet today with all the > military might in the world, we are fighting to a draw. VERY SAD! The war was over in 2003. The us is fighting resistance to their occupation of a sovereign country. > > Even 2,000 years ago without modern weapons in five years Iraq would > > have been under complete Roman control. Yet today with all the > > military might in the world, we are fighting to a draw. VERY SAD! > > The war was over in 2003. The us is fighting resistance to their occupation > of a sovereign country. No they're not. Better luck lying next time, dipshit. crookedmouse sez: " "> > Even 2,000 years ago without modern weapons in five years Iraq would > > have been under complete Roman control. Yet today with all the > > military might in the world, we are fighting to a draw. VERY SAD!..." _________________________ Well, there are two important bits of information missing in your assessment: (1) The Romans would not have tolerated any left-leanering back-stabbers back home, or anywhere else along the way. (2) And after the first two months, there would have only been a paltry few Iraqis left alive after the initial invasion, every last one of them would be kissing Roman a.s 24/7, changing all the arabic road signs into Latin, working on road gangs, or paddling Roman ships back in the Med. Tear-jerkers have taken all the fun out of being a conqueror these days. > crookedmouse sez: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Tear-jerkers have taken all the fun out of being a conqueror these days. __________________________________________________________________________________ Your assessment has merit. > crookedmouse sez: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Tear-jerkers have taken all the fun out of being a conqueror these days. The Romans also had rigged elections. Oh wait, we are Roman in that way. > crookedmouse sez: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > be kissing Roman a.s 24/7, changing all the arabic road signs into Latin, > working on road gangs, or paddling Roman ships back in the Med. Uh, no. (at least according to the various specials on history channel and such.) Unless the local population was totally obnoxious, they incorporated the suitable men into their legions, made the others understand that their economy served Rome now, and gave them the (considerable at the time) protection of Roman law. Of course, they made sure the POWER was always in the hands of people from Rome, and made sure the troops were not all locals, so they could trust them. Own of the many reasons Rome fell is that the more remote generals DID start 'going native', and cared more about the folks around them (including their local wives and children), than what the PTB back home said. There is a reason US military does not let their people stay in one country more than 5-6 years, even if they are doing a good job. Pentagon is worried about it clouding their judgment. (Hard to shoot at people you have bonded with, etc.) Russia, in the old USSR, worked on a similar model. And that model was even sort of the business plan for the fictional Borg on Star Trek. Whatever area you take over, seize any technology and ideas better than your own, but put the other resources to work for your empire. And never let them forget who the Alpha dog is. But no successful empire lays complete waste to all the lands they overrun. Wastelands aren't very useful, and garrisoning them takes up a lot of resources. aem sends... > > crookedmouse sez: > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ________________________________________________________________________________________ In the ancient world once a land was conquered it was now your land, as long as you could hold on to it. The Romans were very successful at incorporating the peoples they conquered into their Empire, as you state. Of course, they were under ? Oh ya I forgot....George Bush. > crookedmouse sez: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Tear-jerkers have taken all the fun out of being a conqueror these days. Yer ...it would be swell to handle the transition of power the manly way they got rid of Caesar. Much for *fun* right? > Even 2,000 years ago without modern weapons in five years Iraq would > have been under complete Roman control. Yet today with all the > military might in the world, we are fighting to a draw. VERY SAD! If that were true then it would be because under Roman rule, when you took an area, you took it. You did not play the PC crap that we play today. You go in with an iron fist and you leave no doubt in the enemies mind that change is imminent. South Korea is a good example of that. We started getting PC during the resistance in Vietnam. > > Even 2,000 years ago without modern weapons in five years Iraq would > > have been under complete Roman control. Yet today with all the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > change is imminent. South Korea is a good example of that. We started > getting PC during the resistance in Vietnam. How did that whole Roman Empire thing work out in the end? Is that really what we should be modeling our society after? > How did that whole Roman Empire thing work out in the end? The Roman Empire failed. However, they were an empire. The USA is not because it does not confiscate land and eternally place its name on the land. > Is that really what we should be modeling our society after? We arent. Whoever told you we were empiral made you believe something that is not true. Furthermore there is no proof that America is emperial. In fact, I challenge you to prove to me that we are emperial. On Feb 23, 2:22�am, "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <No1Exis...@Earth1.net> wrote: > We arent. Whoever told you we were empiral made you believe something that > is not true. Furthermore there is no proof that America is emperial. In > fact, I challenge you to prove to me that we are emperial. Bases in Iraq the size of Rhode Island? >> How did that whole Roman Empire thing work out in the end? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > is not true. Furthermore there is no proof that America is emperial. In > fact, I challenge you to prove to me that we are emperial. I wasn't the one drawing the ill conceived comparison. You're making MY point. BTW..."emperial"??? Is English your first language? I would point out that the US has certainly been ACTING imperial of late. >> How did that whole Roman Empire thing work out in the end? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > is not true. Furthermore there is no proof that America is emperial. In > fact, I challenge you to prove to me that we are emperial. Invasions based on premises of imaginary WMD, but in reality based on control over oil wells who's contracts are going to American interests. That's what's imperialistic. And we will stay there for however long the oli runs, and leave when the ground is dry. >>> How did that whole Roman Empire thing work out in the end? >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > That's what's imperialistic. And we will stay there for however long > the oli runs, and leave when the ground is dry. That works out to about 100 years....coincidence, McBush? ;)  SignatureWe must change the way we live, or the climate will do it for us. www.ipcc.ch/ The institutions of Rome have never fallen, just look around you. But the point was about the military conquest of a given territory. You are going to die someday does that mean your life is a failure because it will end? You appear to be a simpleton. > > > Even 2,000 years ago without modern weapons in five years Iraq would > > > have been under complete Roman control. Yet today with all the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Is that really what we should be modeling our society after? > The institutions of Rome have never fallen, just look around you. But > the point was about the military conquest of a given territory. You > are going to die someday does that mean your life is a failure because > it will end? You appear to be a simpleton. Roman institutions survive in the Catholic Church; through Byzantium, the Russia of Ivan IV Groznij (who married a Byzantine princess), the Soviet Union, and today's Russian Federation; through Aquisgranum(Aachen), Vienna, Paris(of Napoleon), Berlin(of Kaiser William II), and the United States. Almost 8 years ago, I posted the following message: ================= Newsgroups: alt.talk.royalty From: D...@teikyopost.edu Date: 2000/06/30 Subject: The Fourth Rome About 20 years ago, in the Encyclopaedia Britannica article "Eastern Orthodoxy," I was amazed to read that after the fall of Constantinople: "In 1510 the monk Philotheus of Pskov addressed Vasily III as 'tsar' (or emperor) saying; 'Two Romes have fallen, but the third stands, and a fourth there will not be.'" During a subsequent visit to Washington, DC, I was overcome by the Federal buildings, museums, memorials and monuments. For the first time, I became fully aware of the awesome power of the Federal Government. After reading that the location of the US Capitol was named Capitoline Hill by George Washington, it occurred to me that Washington, DC is indeed the Fourth Rome. Thus Philotheus' prediction was wrong, as is the case with most predictions. Moreover, the Cold War can be viewed as the struggle between the Third and Fourth Romes. The Museum of American Political Life, at the University of Hartford, has a poster with the following quotation: "We are the Romans of the modern world--a great assimilating people." Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1858 Since the son was 17 in 1858, I presume that this statement was made by the father. I would appreciate any reference to this quotation. Domenico Rosa "Dovunque saremo, cola` sara` Roma." (Wherever we may be, there will be Rome.) Giuseppe Garibaldi, 30 June 1849, speech to the Assembly of the Roman Republic. [G. M. Trevelyan, Garibaldi's Defence of the Roman Republic, Longmans, London (1907) p 227] ================ Since then, I have been informed that the above was written in 1857 by Holmes, Sr. in his Atantic Monthly column "The Autocrat of the Breakfast Table." After the revolution, the Americans established a new identity by adopting many symbols and institutions of the Roman Republic. For example, the officers of the Continental Army created the Society of the Cincinnati, whose members played a key role in the creation of the Federal Government. The fasces were adopted as a symbol of the federal union. A photo of the two large fasces, wrapped in laurel wreaths, behind the speaker's chair in the House of Representatives is at: http://teachpol.tcnj.edu/amer_pol_hist/fi/00000201.htm The statue of George Washington as Cincinnatus is at: http://www.holycross.edu/departments/classics/wziobro/ClassicalAmerica/GWashingt onHP.htm http://www.virginiacapitol.gov/CapHoudon.aspx The Minuteman (leaving his plow with rifle in hand) monument in Concord is at: http://www.yeodoug.com/resources/dc_french/concord_mman/dcfrench_concord_mman.html DR > After the revolution, the Americans established a new identity by > adopting many symbols and institutions of the Roman Republic. The product of what was then a classical education, no doubt. > > The institutions of Rome have never fallen, just look around you. But > > the point was about the military conquest of a given territory. You [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Date: 2000/06/30 > Subject: The Fourth Rome [snip] I would like to add that rabbinical Judaism may be viewed as another enduring legacy from the Roman Empire, as I pointed out in the following message four years ago. +++++++++++++++++++++++ Newsgroups: alt.talk.royalty From: DR...@teikyopost.edu (Domenico Rosa) Date: 20 Apr 2004 18:50:26 -0700 Local: Tues, Apr 20 2004 8:50 pm Subject: Vespasian and Zakkai About twenty-five years ago, when I read Max I. Dimont's book ["Jews, God and History," Signet (1962)], I was fascinated by the story concerning General Vespasian and the philosopher-rabbi Jochanan ben Zakkai (pp.102-104). All the hoopla generated by the movie "The Passion" led me to review Jewish-Roman relations during the first century, and to read this story in particular. Zakkai was a member of the Peace Party and realized that the folly of "the Zealots could lead only to tragedy." In 68 A.D.: "Besieged Jerusalem was a hellhole. Leaving the city was forbidden, on pain of death. Suspected Peace Party members were thrown over the walls by the Zealots ..." Zakkai came up with an incredible ruse to outwit the Zealots. His disciples spread that news that Zakkai had died of the plague and obtained permission from the Zealot authorities to bury him outside the gates of Jerusalem. The live Zakkai was then carried out of Jerusalem in a sealed coffin. When the coffin was opened in Vespasian's tent, "Zakkai prophesied that Vespasian would soon be emperor, and in such an eventuality, would Emperor Vespasian grant him ... permission to establish a small school of Jewish learning ..." Vespasian agreed to grant permission if the prophecy came true. After he became emperor in 69 A.D., Vespasian "kept his promise to Zakkai, who now founded the first Yeshiva--Jewish academy of learning-- in the town of Jebnah, north of Jerusalem. It was destined to play a central role in Jewish survival." How exactly did Vespasian grant this permission in 69 A.D.? Is there any extant document? According to Dimont, modern rabbinical Judaism evolved from this first yeshiva in Jabneh. It seems to me that rabbinical Judaism may be viewed as another enduring legacy of the Roman Empire. It is also quite apparent to me that, based on how he outwitted the Zealots, Zakkai had the character and mental acumen similar to that of many ancient Romans. Domenico Rosa > Dano wrote > > Don't Taze Me, Bro! wrote [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > How did that whole Roman Empire thing work out in the end? It ended, like all empires do but it had a very good run. On top of the 465 years of the Roman Republic, (510 B.C. to 44 B.C.) the Roman Empire lasted for another 520 years (44 B.C. to 476 A.D) and even longer if you count (correctly IMO) the Byzantine Empire (which fell in 1453 A.D.) as a continuation of the Roman Empire, which works out to 1962 years all together. >> Even 2,000 years ago without modern weapons in five years Iraq would >> have been under complete Roman control. Yet today with all the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > change is imminent. South Korea is a good example of that. We started > getting PC during the resistance in Vietnam. Had the Romans been in charge in Iraq, as soon as the first major battles were won they would have made a deal with the surviving Iraqi generals whereby they would switch sides and support our aims. In return they would have been able to retain at least some of their authority they had under the old government. > Even 2,000 years ago without modern weapons in five years Iraq would > have been under complete Roman control. Yet today with all the > military might in the world, we are fighting to a draw. VERY SAD! Those people have been repelling the infidel for centuries. It's what they do. >> Even 2,000 years ago without modern weapons in five years Iraq would >> have been under complete Roman control. Yet today with all the >> military might in the world, we are fighting to a draw. VERY SAD! > > Those people have been repelling the infidel for centuries. It's what they > do. As I would certainly hope WE would as well. How would we respond to an occupying foreign army on US soil for years...no matter the justification? > >> Even 2,000 years ago without modern weapons in five years Iraq would > >> have been under complete Roman control. Yet today with all the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > As I would certainly hope WE would as well. How would we respond to an > occupying foreign army on US soil for years...no matter the justification? It probably depended on whether there was a dictator or not. Try not to cry, idiot. > Even 2,000 years ago without modern weapons in five years Iraq would > have been under complete Roman control. Yet today with all the > military might in the world, we are fighting to a draw. VERY SAD! The Roman Empire made deserts out of places that resisted their rule! Not hard to do! >The Roman Empire made deserts out of places that resisted their rule! >Not hard to do! Which would give over any claim to "moral superiority" that the US might still have for this occupation. What is current moral justification for this war, anyway ... it keeps changing? I just know that the invasion of a tiny, virtually unarmed and defenseless nation, that did nothing to our own, is an unmitigated act of cowardice, and history will record it so. Charles > On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 04:31:25 -0800 (PST), chatnoir > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Which would give over any claim to "moral superiority" that the US > might still have for this occupation. The deposition of Saddam Hussein is all the moral superiority the US needs. Try lionizing your Muslime heroes less stupidly in the future. > What is current moral justification for this war, anyway ... it keeps > changing? > > I just know that the invasion of a tiny, virtually unarmed and > defenseless nation, that did nothing to our own, is an unmitigated act > of cowardice, and history will record it so. Yes, throwing out a dictator and giving the native population a chance for democracy is "cowardly." When you get back to Earth, let us know. > Charles >> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 04:31:25 -0800 (PST), chatnoir >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The deposition of Saddam Hussein is all the moral superiority the US > needs. Try lionizing your Muslime heroes less stupidly in the future. And yet we're there long after he was deposed. So that's not the justification. No, the justification is black crude. >> What is current moral justification for this war, anyway ... it keeps >> changing? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Yes, throwing out a dictator and giving the native population a chance > for democracy is "cowardly." When you get back to Earth, let us know. Is this the same democracy that treats women worse than cattle? Yeah, something the US can be proud of. >> Charles > > The deposition of Saddam Hussein is all the moral superiority the US > > needs. Try lionizing your Muslime heroes less stupidly in the future. > > And yet we're there long after he was deposed. So that's not the > justification. No, the justification is black crude. And we occupied Japan for years after they were defeated in WW2, so what? You watch too many movies if you think this kind of work is quick and clean cut. If the goal was cheap oil, we wouldn't have invaded. Clearly destabilizing the area doesn't help prices. > > > The deposition of Saddam Hussein is all the moral superiority the US > > > needs. Try lionizing your Muslime heroes less stupidly in the future. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > what? You watch too many movies if you think this kind of work is > quick and clean cut. Really? Explain the resistance the Japanese put up to American occupation! > If the goal was cheap oil, we wouldn't have invaded. Clearly > destabilizing the area doesn't help prices. So?, that is irrelevant to corporate profits! >>> The deposition of Saddam Hussein is all the moral superiority the US >>> needs. Try lionizing your Muslime heroes less stupidly in the future. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If the goal was cheap oil, we wouldn't have invaded. Clearly > destabilizing the area doesn't help prices. Actually it hsa nothing to do with cheap oil. It has to do with getting in so American companies could reap the profits. Higher prices only help. >The deposition of Saddam Hussein is all the moral superiority the US >needs. Try lionizing your Muslime heroes less stupidly in the future. Saddam who? Was it worth the sacrifice of the lives and the bodies of over 30,000 of your countrymen and countrywomen? It probably was to you, a strident cheerleader for a war you don't have the will, the ability, the desire, or the courage to fight. ___ Charles IRAQ WAR Casualties Nearly 29,000 U.S. troops have been wounded in Iraq; more than 3,900 killed, the Pentagon says >>The deposition of Saddam Hussein is all the moral superiority the US >>needs. Try lionizing your Muslime heroes less stupidly in the future. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Nearly 29,000 U.S. troops have been wounded in Iraq; more than 3,900 > killed, the Pentagon says If Iraq raised cotton rather than possess vast amounts of oil do you think the Bush cabal would have invaded it? > > On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 09:29:13 -0800 (PST), feloniousmo...@aol.com > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ You ARE CORRECT Bush would never have invaded Iraq if it was not a part of the world oil cartel. > > On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 09:29:13 -0800 (PST), feloniousmo...@aol.com > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > If Iraq raised cotton rather than possess vast amounts of oil do you think > the Bush cabal would have invaded it? http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/darfur.asp > > On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 09:29:13 -0800 (PST), feloniousmo...@aol.com > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > If Iraq raised cotton rather than possess vast amounts of oil do you think > the Bush cabal would have invaded it? http://www.leonkuhn.org.uk/pclarge/statue_of_liberty_lt.htm TheReturnoftheROMAN a écrit : > Even 2,000 years ago without modern weapons in five years Iraq would > have been under complete Roman control. Yet today with all the > military might in the world, we are fighting to a draw. VERY SAD! Why do you say so? Trajan's conquest of Babylonia (more or less modern Iraq) didn't last more than 2 years (in fact about 30 months) and he was obliged to give up in 117 AD. Atb _____________________________ Christos Nüssli ***************************** Europe Maps - http://www.euratlas.com >TheReturnoftheROMAN a écrit : >> Even 2,000 years ago without modern weapons in five years Iraq would [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Atb I attended school for 17 years (5 years of university), and NEVER had a single course in world history. Two years ago, I checked out a good book from the "young adults" section of the public library on "The History of Iraq", which was published in 2004, and included mention of the US invasion and occupation of that country. But the ancient history was fascinating to read and, in a book aimed, not at historical scholars, but at high-school students, it was quite easy to understand. It read better than Wikipedia. Charles >> TheReturnoftheROMAN a écrit : >>> Even 2,000 years ago without modern weapons in five years Iraq would [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I attended school for 17 years (5 years of university), and NEVER had > a single course in world history. Wow. That is a really really sad commentary on the state of education. .. SignatureWe must change the way we live, or the climate will do it for us. >> I attended school for 17 years (5 years of university), and NEVER had >> a single course in world history. > >Wow. That is a really really sad commentary on the state of education. Fortunately, though, as a result of my conservative background, I realized (before it was too late) that education is not a responsibility of the State. Neither is a financial bailout of the finance companies. Neither is the military occupation of Mesopotamia. Charles >>> I attended school for 17 years (5 years of university), and NEVER had >>> a single course in world history. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > realized (before it was too late) that education is not a > responsibility of the State. Like I said, a sad commentary on the state of education... .. SignatureWe must change the way we live, or the climate will do it for us. >> Fortunately, though, as a result of my conservative background, I >> realized (before it was too late) that education is not a >> responsibility of the State. > >Like I said, a sad commentary on the state of education... Yep, and, it might be quite accurately pointed out, so is the complete lack of substance or significance in your unnecssary repetitition of that statement. Charles >>> I attended school for 17 years (5 years of university), and NEVER >>> had a single course in world history. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > realized (before it was too late) that education is not a > responsibility of the State. Maybe not a responsibility per se but a damn good idea. Do you want to live in a country with the literacy rate of Niger? I'll keep voting for the folks who think public education is worth a few bucks. You, of course, are welcome to vote the other way 'round. Ain't representative democracy grand? :-) > Neither is a financial bailout of the finance companies. Maybe not such a good idea. It sure screwed Japan big time, anyway. Then again, what would George Bailey have done without a bailout? > Neither is the military occupation of Mesopotamia. Clearly a very, very bad idea. Bottom line: ideologies are kind of stupid. Let's take stuff on a case-by-case basis like the grown ups we should be acting like. > TheReturnoftheROMAN a écrit : > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > more than 2 years (in fact about 30 months) and he was obliged to give > up in 117 AD. Was that before or after he died in 117 A.D.? The second revolt oif the Jews did not help matters! Yes, and Hadrian had to build a wall! All Empires tend to over reach! chatnoir a écrit : >> TheReturnoftheROMAN a écrit : >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Was that before or after he died in 117 A.D.? The second revolt oif > the Jews did not help matters! Il est mort au moment où il réorganisait ses troupes pour contrer la révolte. > Yes, and Hadrian had to build a wall! All Empires tend to over reach! _____________________________ Christos Nüssli ***************************** Europe Maps - http://www.euratlas.net > TheReturnoftheROMAN a écrit : > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > ***************************** > Europe Maps - http://www.euratlas.com ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ What you say is historical. But remember Rome had many fronts: Germany, North Africa, Egypt, Britain. We have a concentrated force in one area and have not got the job done; not because of our military, but because we now fight PC wars. If you are not going into a war to wage war, then we should not have gone into Iraq. Nation building is a myth. > Even 2,000 years ago without modern weapons in five years Iraq would > have been under complete Roman control. Yet today with all the > military might in the world, we are fighting to a draw. VERY SAD! Under Emperor Hadrian, the Romans conquered Mesopotamia and reached the Persian Gulf. But they were not able to retain control of the region for very long. > Even 2,000 years ago without modern weapons in five years Iraq would > have been under complete Roman control. Yet today with all the > military might in the world, we are fighting to a draw. VERY SAD! The Romans weren't fighting a leftist media either. >> Even 2,000 years ago without modern weapons in five years Iraq would >> have been under complete Roman control. Yet today with all the >> military might in the world, we are fighting to a draw. VERY SAD! > >The Romans weren't fighting a leftist media either. I tend to call it a corporatist media since they get to call what they want to enhance their business. I don't think they care what political idealogy they use as long as it helps the bottom line. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.