PDA

View Full Version : What have we learned in 2063 yrs?



Bob Gutermuth
08-03-2009, 09:25 AM
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be
> refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of
> officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the
> assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome
> become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of
> living on public assistance." > > /- Cicero - 55 BC/
> > > > Evidently nothing!

YardleyLabs
08-03-2009, 10:07 AM
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be
> refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of
> officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the
> assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome
> become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of
> living on public assistance." > > /- Cicero - 55 BC/
> > > > Evidently nothing!
This keeps coming up, but no matter how often it is repeated, it still is not a quote from Cicero. Among other things, there was no such thing as public assistance in Cicero's Rome. Assistance to foreign lands would have been considered a bad joke by the people of those lands since the "assistance" came in the form of an occupying army, economic exploitation, and taxation without representation.

dnf777
08-03-2009, 12:15 PM
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be
> refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of
> officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the
> assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome
> become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of
> living on public assistance." > > /- Cicero - 55 BC/
> > > > Evidently nothing!

A large part of the unraveling of the Roman Empire is when they tried to occupy the Middle East.

A large part of the USSR's unraveling was due to the expense of trying to occupy/conquer the Middle East.

What was W thinking when he invaded/occupied Iraq?

As the song goes...."don't know much about history..."

Bob Gutermuth
08-03-2009, 12:54 PM
Cicero may not have said it, but the quote rings true and is applicable today. Rome had public assistance, it was called the dole, during the time of Gaius Julius Caesar, likely before and after as well.

Roger Perry
08-03-2009, 01:15 PM
]]]"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be[/b][/b][/B]
> refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of
> officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the
> assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome
> become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of
> living on public assistance." > > /- Cicero - 55 BC/
> > > > Evidently nothing!


Maybe you should have sent that to G W Bush!

YardleyLabs
08-03-2009, 01:20 PM
As it turns out, this quote is actually from an historical fiction novel by Taylor Caldwell written in 1965. The Pillar of Iron is the novel. Taylor Caldwell was a conservative novelist who often wrote for the American Opinion, the John Birch Society's monthly publication.

Franco
08-03-2009, 01:26 PM
A large part of the unraveling of the Roman Empire is when they tried to occupy the Middle East.

"

The date given for Rome's official fall is 410AD. That is when the eastern empire's capitol of Rome was sacked. The powers that were Rome at the time in the Western Empire got into the habit of payng tribute to their enemies so that they woudn't be attacked. Year after year the tribute went up and cost Rome more. Rome at the time had spinless leaders and thought that the greatness of Rome would always endure and the people of Rome bought itno this. Finally, the barabarians that were being payed tribute decide to hell with the money and sacked Rome.
Rome's influence in the mideast was never a problem for them. Harrod and the kings that succeeded him ruled with an iron fist and new they could maintain power as long as he supported Rome. In Egypt, after the death of Cleopatra, it fell into complete chaos except for where Rome had soldiers. Egypt was completely subservient to Rome until Rome fell.

In regards to the Eastern Empire, it survived for another 150 years after the fall of the west, falling to the modern day Turks.

If one could place thier finger on the biggest issues that led to Rome's fall, it would be poor government that over-spent depleting its treasury, the failure to maintain a strong army/depending on mercenaries and the apathy of the citizens of Rome.

dnf777
08-03-2009, 01:37 PM
The date given for Rome's official fall is 410. That is when the eastern empire's capitol of Rome was sacked. The powers that were Rome at the time in the Western Empire got into the habit of payng tribute to their enemies so that they woudn't be attacked. Year after year the tribute went up and cost Rome more. Rome at the time had spinless leaders and thought that the greatness of Rome would always endure and the people of Rome bought itno this. Finally, the barabarians that were being payed tribute decide to hell with the money and sacked Rome.
Rome's influence in the mideast was never a problem for them. Harrod ruled with an iron fist and new he could maintain his power as long as he supported Rome. In Egypt, after the death of Cleopatra, it fell into complete chaois except for where Rome had soldiers. Egypt was completely subservient to Rome until Rome fell.

In regards to the Eastern Empire, it survived for another 150 years after the fall of the west, falling to the modern day Turks.

If one could place thier finger on the biggest issue that led to Rome's fall, it would be poor government that over-spent depleting its treasury, the failure to maintain a strong army/depending on mercenaries and the apathy of the citizens of Rome.

Yes. But overextending its military reach was a major contributor as well.
Anyway, another intersting tidbit is that the average BMI of Romans was increasing to morbid obesity levels as well, from what historians can gather from text and portrayals. In addition to our military reaches, taxation, apathy....our Twinkie Index is hitting record highs as well. :shock:

Bob Gutermuth
08-03-2009, 01:43 PM
Roger, I had very few reasons to communicate with W. My biggest disagreement with him was over immigration. In any event he is not in charge at this time, and Fearless leader is the one who is spending money like a shipload of drunken sailors.

Franco
08-03-2009, 01:54 PM
Yes. But overextending its military reach was a major contributor as well.
Anyway, another intersting tidbit is that the average BMI of Romans was increasing to morbid obesity levels as well, from what historians can gather from text and portrayals. In addition to our military reaches, taxation, apathy....our Twinkie Index is hitting record highs as well. :shock:


That twinkie index could be a major reason of why we now work for our government instead of the government working for us. As a nation, we have for the most part become fat, lazy and apathic. That's why we have had the leadership problems we've had for years.

P S In the east, Rome stopped at Constantenople and the near east, Judea and Egypt. They fell in the east not because they were over-strectched but because they became a soft people. Thier attempt to spread Christianity was what led to the hostility with the Muslim Turks. It was religion that did them in, not an over-streched army.

In the west, Rome still ruled Britanica and Gaul when Rome fell. That had nothing to do with the mideast. ;-)

Gun_Dog2002
08-03-2009, 02:13 PM
The fall of the Roman empire was directly related to their consistant decline in morals and their degredation into liberal thinking.

/Paul

badbullgator
08-03-2009, 02:58 PM
Maybe you should have sent that to G W Bush!


Good one Roger you really told em http://floridasportsman.com/art/rolleyes.gif (http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/post?cmd=reply&id=10851974#)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v61/DaGriz/horse.gif (http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/post?cmd=reply&id=10851974#)

Raymond Little
08-03-2009, 03:20 PM
The fall of the Roman empire was directly related to their consistant decline in morals and their degredation into liberal thinking.

/Paul
Cash for Chariots, Global Cooling;)

Franco
08-03-2009, 03:50 PM
Cash for Chariots, Global Cooling;)



Don't forget Universal Latin Health Care.

After the Dems destroy the best Health Care system in the world, they will be trying to Nationalize our energy industry.

Their motto will be,"If 10. per liter is good for the Europeans, then $8. a gallon is good for us".

dnf777
08-03-2009, 05:41 PM
That twinkie index could be a major reason of why we now work for our government instead of the government working for us. As a nation, we have for the most part become fat, lazy and apathic. That's why we have had the leadership problems we've had for years.

P S In the east, Rome stopped at Constantenople and the near east, Judea and Egypt. They fell in the east not because they were over-strectched but because they became a soft people. Thier attempt to spread Christianity was what led to the hostility with the Muslim Turks. It was religion that did them in, not an over-streched army.

In the west, Rome still ruled Britanica and Gaul when Rome fell. That had nothing to do with the mideast. ;-)

I'll defer to your knowledge of Roman history. I only read the abridged Gibbon's "Decline and Fall..", and that was MANY years ago.

Lending my ears regards,
dave

Franco
08-03-2009, 05:53 PM
A lot of similarities between them and us. They had thier Cincinatus, we had our George Washington. They had thier Ceasar Augustus, we had our Franklin Roosevelt. They had Julius Ceasar, we Eisenhower. They had their Nero, we have our Obama.

dnf777
08-03-2009, 06:16 PM
A lot of similarities between them and us. They had thier Cincinatus, we had our George Washington. They had thier Ceasar Augustus, we had our Franklin Roosevelt. They had Julius Ceasar, we Eisenhower. They had their Nero, we have our Obama.

they had their court jesters, we have congress.....

Hew
08-03-2009, 07:18 PM
A large part of the unraveling of the Roman Empire is when they tried to occupy the Middle East.

A large part of the USSR's unraveling was due to the expense of trying to occupy/conquer the Middle East.

What was W thinking when he invaded/occupied Iraq?

As the song goes...."don't know much about history..."

Or more appropriately, as the song continues, "don't know much about geography." Afghanistan isn't in the Middle East. That aside, is your point that we should have learned from the Soviets and not gone into Afghanistan after 911?

JDogger
08-03-2009, 08:33 PM
What have we learned in 2063 yrs?

Not much, obviously.

Well except, don't believe everything on the internet.

JD

dnf777
08-03-2009, 09:04 PM
Or more appropriately, as the song continues, "don't know much about geography." Afghanistan isn't in the Middle East. That aside, is your point that we should have learned from the Soviets and not gone into Afghanistan after 911?

That was referring to Iraq. And yes, I, along with everyone else agreed with thumping those who were responsible for 9-11. What I don't understand, is why we quit on Afghanistan, let bin Laden escape, and invaded another country that had NOTHING to do with 9-11. Then fired the general who said we needed more troops on the ground (shinseki), only to try and take credit 5 years later with the "surge". Have to admit, he got about half of Americans to buy his story. Obama or any other politician trying to promote their agenda against the will of congress and the people could take a lesson from him!

Hew
08-03-2009, 10:35 PM
Then fired the general who said we needed more troops on the ground (shinseki), only to try and take credit 5 years later with the "surge". As Reagan would say, "there he goes again... Shinseki was given his papers more than a year before Iraq, but was allowed to finish his term as a lame duck. It was therefore impossible for his firing to have anything to do whatsoever with his Iraq troop projections. Have to admit, he got about half of Americans to buy his story. Would you rather them believe your highly inaccurate and factually-challenged version of events? The surge was a strategery fathered, championed and persued by Bush, with a lot of help from McCain, at a time when it was not popular to do so. The conventional wisdom in Washington and even at the Pentagon at the time was to cut our losses and throw Iraq to the wolves. Obama or any other politician trying to promote their agenda against the will of congress and the people could take a lesson from him! Seeing as you can't possibly be talking about the invasion of Iraq as being done unilaterally, I will presume you're referring to the Surge. And if your reference was to the Surge, then your point is well taken...you'd rather we didn't do the Surge and have lost Iraq than to give Bush his due for exhibiting the necessary leadership to push the Surge when all others were advocating defeat. Nice. :rolleyes:
...............

dnf777
08-04-2009, 12:12 AM
...............

A year before Iraq was about the time we now know that the plans were being layed. Despite talking about listening to the generals on the ground, he consistently ignored all advice except that which agreed with him. Hell, his handlers didn't let him even HEAR the dissent. In Pittsburgh, a triple-war veteran was arrested for not staying behind the "free speech zone" barricade with his anti-Iraq war poster!

After twisting my words so much, you may want to check out www.chiropractor4U.com! :)

Hew
08-04-2009, 08:56 AM
A year before Iraq was about the time we now know that the plans were being layed. C'mon, guy. There's not a soul in the Pentagon, living or dead, who believes Shinseki was fired for his troop predictions/testimony before Congress. He was forced out long before that because he didn't get along with Rumsfeld. BTW, much of their disagreement was over Shinseki's desire to piss money down a tube buying the Crusader weapon system...a weapon designed to fight the Soviets in the Fulda Gap, and just about worthless for fighting the wars we're fighting now. In that case, Rumsfeld was the visionary and dead-on correct and Shinseki was proving the old saw that generals plan to fight the last war; not the next war. Despite talking about listening to the generals on the ground, he consistently ignored all advice except that which agreed with him. I'm not agreeing with the notion that he discounted or discouraged advice that wasn't in lockstep with his beliefs. I will agree that he wasn't beholden to following all of the advice. And with respect to the Surge, thank goodness he didn't follow the conventional advice/wisdom coming out of the Pentagon. BTW, there's plenty of historical evidence that indicates that generals aren't Oracles sent from God above. If Lincoln believed in the sacrosanctity of generals you'd be eating the hell out boiled peanuts up in your neck of the woods right now. Does General Westmoreland ring a bell?

By the way, you never commented...was it a good thing that Bush rammed the Surge down the throats of a generally unwilling Congress and populace?

------------

dnf777
08-04-2009, 10:11 AM
"By the way, you never commented...was it a good thing that Bush rammed the Surge down the throats of a generally unwilling Congress and populace? "


Better he follow his general's advice late than never. I'm not sure however, nor is anyone, that the surge was merely a well-timed, yet insignificant intervention. No disrespect at all meant to my brothers-in-arms, but BOTH sides of the debate have commented that such insurgencies are won not militarily, but politically. By the time of the surge, the population of Sunni Muslims was nil, given the number of refugees counted in surrounding havens. The decrease in violence may be more due to lack of opposition, than crushing military blows. I believe you will recall this thought was floated by parties both in and outside of the Bush adminstration and Pentagon. I"m sorry I cannot quote sources, I simply do not have the harddrive space for everything.

mjh345
08-04-2009, 01:54 PM
Hew, you apparently give Bush et.al. kudos for the surge and the "success" it brought. I may differ with you on your definition of the surges success.
However my question is whom do you lay the blame on for the mismanagement of the war prior to the surge?

Hew
08-04-2009, 05:57 PM
Hew, you apparently give Bush et.al. kudos for the surge and the "success" it brought. I may differ with you on your definition of the surges success.
However my question is whom do you lay the blame on for the mismanagement of the war prior to the surge?
Bush. He was the Commander-in-Chief and the Decider for all aspects, good and bad, of the war. The buck stopped at his desk.

So now that we've established that I'm not the hypocrite here, we'll just need you and DNF to cop to the notion that Bush deserves credit for the Surge (sans the smarmy "success") if you'd care to join the club.

Hew
08-04-2009, 06:05 PM
By the time of the surge, the population of Sunni Muslims was nil, given the number of refugees counted in surrounding havens. The decrease in violence may be more due to lack of opposition, than crushing military blows.
Interesting. I've read before that the Surge resulted in the Sunnis leaving/fleeing some neighborhoods in Baghdad, but I believe you're the very first person I've ever read making the contention that there was nary a Sunni in Baghdad when the Surge started.

dnf777
08-04-2009, 09:05 PM
Bush. He was the Commander-in-Chief and the Decider for all aspects, good and bad, of the war. The buck stopped at his desk.

Here's dear Mr. Bush stopping the buck. This is from Deseret News, one of the most conservative areas in the world, so don't attack the source this time.


Bush blames CIA for N-slip
Deseret News (Salt Lake City), Jul 12, 2003 by Tom Raum Associated Press
123Next
ENTEBBE, Uganda -- President Bush on Friday put responsibility squarely on the CIA for his erroneous claim that Iraq tried to acquire nuclear material from Africa, prompting the director of intelligence to publicly accept full blame for the miscue.

"I gave a speech to the nation that was cleared by the intelligence services," Bush told reporters in Uganda.

Hours later, CIA Director George Tenet issued a statement, saying the 16 words in Bush's State of the Union address concerning a purported uranium deal should never have been uttered by the president.

Now that's loyalty!

Hew
08-05-2009, 06:52 AM
Here's dear Mr. Bush stopping the buck. This is from Deseret News, one of the most conservative areas in the world, so don't attack the source this time.
That's nice. But I wish you would have spent all that computer time looking for an article backing up your off-the-wall claim that there weren't any Sunnis in Baghdad before the Surge. But then unsourced/unfounded claims and rants about Bush are the two gals you brought to the prom, so I wasn't expecting much else. And as always, you delivered.

BTW...the source of the article is the Associated Press; not Deseret News.

And if you're gonna cut-n-paste articles, I know it's a nutty, whacky concept, but it is usually customary and helpful to put quotes around the article so readers can distinguish between the article and your comments (although the nuttiness of your comments is usually a pretty good indicator). Thanks

dnf777
08-05-2009, 07:36 AM
That's nice. But I wish you would have spent all that computer time looking for an article backing up your off-the-wall claim that there weren't any Sunnis in Baghdad before the Surge. But then unsourced/unfounded claims and rants about Bush are the two gals you brought to the prom, so I wasn't expecting much else. And as always, you delivered.

BTW...the source of the article is the Associated Press; not Deseret News.

And if you're gonna cut-n-paste articles, I know it's a nutty, whacky concept, but it is usually customary and helpful to put quotes around the article so readers can distinguish between the article and your comments (although the nuttiness of your comments is usually a pretty good indicator). Thanks

The article was published in the Deseret News. It was syndicated by the AP.

I am not a paid publicist or campaign strategist for any political entity, and as such will not spend inordinate amounts of time on this, especially when I acknowledge I cannot recall a specific source. If a non-right-wing-extremist said it hurts to get kicked in the groin, you would not believe it until a randomized-controlled double-blinded study, reported by FoxNews came out complete with proper citations, so I won't pretend to live up to your standards. My day job requires such diligence, not friendly political banter.

Besides, like the 'fossil' thread revealed, when facts contrary to the agenda are produced and cited, they are dismissed as fallacy, or just ignored, so there's no utility in the time spent.

Enjoy that sandwich,
Dave

Hew
08-05-2009, 03:32 PM
I am not a paid publicist or campaign strategist for any political entity, and as such will not spend inordinate amounts of time on this, especially when I acknowledge I cannot recall a specific source. Right. You've made nearly 500 posts in less than two months. Somehow I'm thinking that an "inordinate amount of time" doing anything is not much of an issue for you. But if you ask me, and you didn't, I would think being factually accurate, or hell, at least making an effort to be factually accurate, would be important to a scientist like yourself. If a non-right-wing-extremist said it hurts to get kicked in the groin, you would not believe it until a randomized-controlled double-blinded study, reported by FoxNews came out complete with proper citations, so I won't pretend to live up to your standards. My day job requires such diligence, not friendly political banter.

Besides, like the 'fossil' thread revealed, when facts contrary to the agenda are produced and cited, they are dismissed as fallacy, or just ignored, so there's no utility in the time spent. Why shouldn't everyone ignore your "facts" when you've just explained that you don't have the time, energy, desire or obligation to assure that your "facts" are accurate? And then when you're inaccuracy is pointed out, you offer no mea culpas or bother to correct your mistatement.

Enjoy that sandwich, Always. Thanks.
Dave

..............

dnf777
08-05-2009, 03:45 PM
I was about to respond in kind to the false accusations you levy, and point out some other inaccuracies, but really have more pleasant things to do, and don't want to get into a personal match on this forum, so I'll just enjoy a sandwich also.

Have a good one. :monkey: