tflex

Is the goat pregnant?

Goodness gracious, is that what desperate people do in Sudan?

I really like the platypus thing, it's nicer looking than a duck. Also like the McDonalds opposed to Taliban thing. To call the U.S. imperialistic is simply not true, it's anything but that. The U.S. don't go around oprressing foriegn populations and forcing them to integrate into one empire. Iraqi's just had a free election for the first time in centuries probably. Ofcourse, the new Iraqi government will be friendlier to the U.S and why not? No matter what the motivation was behind the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the result is the same, the Iraqi's are now free of a psychotic dictator that murdered and tortured his own people for decades. If the U.S. is gonna get special oil deals then good for them, they deserved it and certainly earned it. A more recent example of Imperialism is the British or French empires of the 16th-19th century. Just becuase the U.S. has military bases in there doesn't mean they colonized Iraq. Besides the U.S. troops don't plan on being there forever.

One point that should be mentioned about the long term effects of the Battle of Adrianople, is that it seriously raised the morale of the barbarians and put a permanent dent in Roman invincibility. Recruitment became difficult after this defeat.

Bush's policy is to go after those middle eastern countries that have a long history of supporting terrorism against the U.S. and the west. So far his policy has been successful and assuming that the next administration will stick to this policy, the entire middle east will be transformed. These are the target countries Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya and Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom will have to be treated through diplomatic means, it's in the interest of the royal family to assist the U.S. government with it's war on terror. They are a bigger and an easier target for the terrorists, who would like nothing more than to overthrow the royal family and install an extremist state similar to Iran. I'm convinced the royal family is working with the U.S. behind the scenes. Afghanistan and Iraq have already been transformed by military force, although Iran and Syria are financing and sending terrorists to both countries which have kept the situation there volatile especially in Iraq, which borders both Iran and Syria. The turmoil in Iraq will not stop until Syria and Iran are taken care of. Gaddafi learned well from Saddam's mistakes and jumped on board with the U.S. Lebanon with the help of the U.S. is finally independant of Syrian control. But Syria and Iran continue to smuggle arms and money through the Lebanese border to help finance Hizbullah's war against Israel and to terrorize anti Syria or pro west lebanese politcians and citizens. Once the Assad regime is removed from Syria, Lebanon will be completely stabilized. I think the next U.S. target is Syria, there will be a regime change soon, but I'm not sure if it will be done by military force or diplomacy. The U.S. recently opened dialogue with the 'Muslim Brotherhood' who are banned by the Assad regime. Something is in the works to oust Assad. Iran's government is the head of the snake and by far the most anti U.S. especially now with this lunatic Ahmadinejad, who is trying build nukes. Being the last U.S. target, Iran will feel increasingly isolated from it's neighbours. The future of Iran is with it's younger generation who significantly outnumber the older more conservative population and are supportive of better relations with the west. The U.S. will support an opposition party that will help overthrow the tyrannical regime that has been in place since 1979. I don't think this will happen anytime soon, maybe 4 years down the road. If the U.S. can stay on course and accomplish this policy, then I truly think with friendly governments in the middle east, it will be more feasible to implement real peace between Israel and Palestine.

Alright you give it a name then. You can call it the Roman Empire, Imperial Rome, Imperial state etc. You know exactly what I'm talking about, so don't pretend that you don't. If you don't here is the definition of "Imperial". Now count from 27 BC the date which the Roman Senate granted Octavian the title "Augustus" all the way to 476 AD the traditional date of when the western Roman empire fell. Thats 503 years to be exact, so I think I'm sticking to the facts. Maybe you were not aware of these dates. You need to stop ignoring facts and you should stop telling people how to make their arguments. I don't need to state obvious facts in detail which you already know, especially after we've debated this same topic before in other threads. Furthermore, I don't need to use matmatical formulas and exact numbers everytime I debate a Roman topic. I'm sorry but mathmatics don't reflect the whole story, you stick to your own methods and I'll stick to mine. I've used facts to support this same argument 10 times before.(Sorry Cato thats not an exact number) Getting back to topic most members voted for Roman Disunity/Political Infighting. There are many instances in Roman history of infighting and disunity, but Rome somehow always recovered from it's bloody civil wars and illegal power transfers etc. I think it's ability to recover had a lot to do with the health of it's economy. The decline of the economy played a big part in fueling tensions and corruption, and the civil wars were simply too costly for an already weakened economy. If you add on top of that massive barbarian activity it's a recipe for disaster. Thats why I think the primary reasons for Rome's collapse are Mass Migration and Economic Decline.

Somehow I think we've argued this point before, but I'll take another shot at it. What you said proves that the republic was too weak to enforce its own laws and it also proves that Caesar the individual was bigger and more powerful than the republic system itself. Not good.

Because, I stand by my position that unconstitutional transfers didn't matter if the system was able to withstand it. It's the result that counts. The fact is for 200 years Rome prospered even with the illegal transfers of power that took place. Ofcourse, I'm only talking about the Pax Romana. Laws were ignored under both systems, but it was still more stable than the late republic. Also, power transfer is not the only factor that determines stability, it's an important one but by no means the only one. Thats too easy Cato, just go back and look at the events leading up to the Gracchis and the civil wars that followed. Surely you are familiar with the events that took place during that period and their negative effects on the system in place? Or do I have to dictate them to you, I don't think so. As a result of civil strife and unconstitutional activites, the republic was strained, crumbled, collapsed, fell, suffocated etc. Are these metaphors? yes. Are they accurate? absolutely. Are they backed up by facts? yes. The uncostitutional transfers that you talk about obviuosly hurt the imperial system at the end, but during the Pax Romana (200 years) the system survived and prospered even under such power transfers, the republic didn't because it was more unstable and weaker.

No Cato, I was talking about the Imperial state. But one day I'm sure you will see the light and become a loyal follower of Caesar and the Imperial state.

Yes I pulled it out of my head, it was painful! It doesn't matter if there was more unconstitutional transfers of power, it did better than the late republic and held it's own anyway. The good Emperors of the Pax Romana were far more effective than the good consuls of of the late republic, that is if there were any good consuls. The same way the bad emperors were worse than the bad consuls of the republic. The Imperial state had both extremes and the Pax Romana was extereme success. It's not as simple as Provinces and manpower. A city state can be run a lot smoother than an empire with no comparison in responsibilities. After Scipios conquests the republic slowly started feeling the strain of managing such an enormous empire and slowly began to crumble under it's own weight. Then Caesar came and added even more to the growng empire and consequently the republic collapsed. Not a coincidence.

Again Cato we've been down this road many times before, you just can't have a disasterous scheme that lasted almost 500 years. You simply cannot hold such a large empire for so long if the system was disasterous. If thats the case then it should have lasted as long as Alexanders empire.

Churchill has to be the man of the century. Prime minister, master politician, soldier, historian, author and a painter. He sure screwed up Hitlers plan of dominating Europe. He also had an uncanny ability to predict the future. "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." Sir Winston Churchill

I don't think that it was fear, but more so the men you mentioned were very ambitious and had great aspirations. If you want power then the natural thing to do is to align yourself with the most powerful man in Rome, which was Sulla at the the time. Once Sulla died these men could rise out of his shadow and make their own name. It was self interest and greed. Supporting Sulla at the time would have served their interests more than if they had opposed him, I think it was as simple as that. It was about the individual not Rome.

His influence on our world is ever lasting. Maybe the state of Israel would never have existed if it wasn't for Hitler and his henchmen. His derangement shaped our world today. I can't help but think what would have happened if he decided not to break the Ribbentrop-Molotov treaty which opened a war on two fronts, or if he had decided to annihilate the British at Dunkirk as they retreated, or maybe started the war 2 years later, that way the Germans would have had more time to develop their already superior weaponary technology and mass produce it. They would have missiles(secret weapon at the time), much faster and more advanced fighter planes than the allies, it's also possible they would have been first to develop the Atomic bomb, the outcome of the war might have been different. Hitler should have yielded to his generals when it came to military strategy, its possible that the outcome in Normandy would have also been different. Hitler made Nazi Germany but was also responsible for its demise through his interference in military affairs.

It's natural for the Shia to wanna get even with a Sunni minority that oppressed them for decades. But I truly think if they didn't have the Sunnis to take it out on, they would turn on the Americans. I think they've been instructed by their clerics not to attack Americans, because under this new political system they now have a clear majority and hold most of the power. They are still benefiting from the American invasion so why make trouble now. The problem is once they get what they want and the Sunnis are no longer a major threat to them, I'm pretty sure they will turn on the Americans. The Shias can be more fanatical and backstabbing than their Sunni neighbours. I"de like to know what your thoughts are on this matter and if you think its worth staying there in the long run?

If the Americans leave now, I guarantee their will be a civil war. They need to stick around a little longer maybe for another year until the Iraqis organize a competent army that can deal with the local violence and tensions.

I have to go with Isaac Newton. He was way ahead of his time and so diverse in talent a physicist, chemist, mathematician, philosopher, inventor, artistic etc. I can't tell you how much it annoyed me when my professors back in school and some of my friends had to make the comment that Newton was somehow 'second to Einstein'. Newton was born approx. 250 years before Einstein, and did not have the benefit of the rapid scientific advancements that had occured during those 250 years. People always credit Einsein with having the unique ability to apply imagination to science(thinking outside the box). I think that term is better suited for earlier scientists like Plato, Aristotle, Copernicus and Newton ofcourse. They had to start from scratch with little to no data to work with, no starting point but rather they created their own data and scientific laws. I'm not saying Einstein didn't find his own laws independently, but just that he is no superior to Newton, even in the field of Physics. Besides I don't see Einstein accomplishing what he did without Newtons earlier research and findings. If Plato & Aristotle had to start from point A, then Newton had to start from point D, and Einstein 250 years later started from point G. In my opinion for his time, Newton had the most logical and imaginative mind rivaled only by the Greek scientists.

Alright, first choose whom you think is the greatest genius to walk the earth, then explain why you made that choice, and what impact that person had in history and on our world today. For example: Plato, Aristotle, Archimedes, Alexander the Great, Caesar, Heron of Alexandria, Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Isaac Newton, Einstein, Galileo, Stephen Hawking, Darwin, Sigmund Freud etc. These are just some examples, you can choose from any field - military, science, mathmatics, musician etc. Choose your favorite.

I'm pretty sure western governments know exactly the scope of the problem but they try to be politically correct about it in public. I'm sure the CIA, MI6 etc. are well aware of the widespread muslim fundamentalism. I think the best way to deal with it in the short term, is what Bush is trying to do now, take the war to them. Fundamentalists understand only one language and thats force. On the other hand you can't change peoples beliefs, young muslims are taught at a very young age that jews are the seed of the devil and christians are infidels. I'll give you a good example of how deep their hatred is, I live in Los Angeles, a few years back I had to go the Lebanese consulate in downtown LA to renew my passport. When I walked through the consulate door, I immediately noticed a huge map of Lebanon hung on the wall. The map showed the bordering countries, Syria and Palestine but Israel was noticably absent from the map, they just replaced it with Palestine and refuse to acknowledge it's existance. I sat down and next to me there was a middle aged man in his late 30's, I noticed he was staring at the map too, when he saw me sit next to him, he turned to me and told me with a smile in arabic, "In a few years Palestine will liberate it's land and Israel will have it's own land in the middle of the meditarranean sea and hopefully they will all drown there and that'll be the end of them" Whats worse is he was holding in his hand a U.S. passport, a natuaralized citizen. And, I'm talking about a consulate in Los Angeles not Saudi Arabia. Bahrain and Kuwait, you would assume they are moderate and pro-American, but infact they are anti-American especially the younger generation.

I respectfully disagree with that statement. I come orginally from Lebanon, I lived there for 10 years, I've been to Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, UAE and Pakistan. I'm a christian by religion but an arab by ethnicity, I know the culture well growing up around muslims and especially during a civil war. One thing I noticed in my country and the other countries I visited, there is a clear majority that are absolutely fundamentalist and a moderate minority. From my experience I would estimate it to be 65% hardliners and 35% moderate. In terms of their hatred towards jews, I would say 85% despise them and 15% accept them. These are my own rough estimates but I do think a westerner's experience may be different than mine. Usually, what typically happens in an interaction, your average muslim citizen might give the impression he is open minded to the westerner just to impress him, but when the westerner turns his back, that same muslim will go to his friends and curse the hell out of him and his country. I've personally witnessed this on many occasions. I think people make a serious mistake when they try to be politically correct about the numbers of fanatics, it hides the real problem, which is not that the minority is supporting terror but rather the majority wants it to happen, and thats exactly why the terrorists keep increasing in numbers. They have a majority supporting them. A lot of the moderates emigrate to the west, thats why most muslims living in the west are open minded.

They would have lost even with gunpowder and guns. You need to give them more than that if you aim to change the outcome.

Sorry to disappoint you but it's not true. Only copies were destroyed not the originals. There is no evidence that the main library was destroyed by Caesar. I would have exposed the senator's plot against Caesar. Caesar would have lived and kept on conquering.

But the difference is Caesar and Augustus were trying to find a permanent solution and at the end Augustus implemented the solution and it worked. There were civil wars before but they were all unsuccessful in bringing about stability for a long period of time. The cycle of destructive civil wars finally took a backseat in the Pax Romana and the empire was finally free to prosper and flourish again and it did for 200 years. Compared to the late republic, yes the early imperial era was 10 times more stable. You can't count the early republic because it did not have half the responsibilities of the late republic and early empire. During the Pax Romana internal revolts were fewer and the system was able to recover after a Caligula or a Nero, the same cannot be said for the late republic.

I will check Polybius's work but again the problem was ambition and motivation. The Romans changed their system several times to accomodate their changing policies. I'm not saying the Athenians weren't interested in building an empire but they couldn't do it because they lacked the drive to change their system to accomodate expansion. The Romans turned on their own capital and forced change, thats called fanaticism. The Romans had an unshakable will, if they couldn't bring about change through legal and peaceful means, then they had no problem changing it by force. The Athenians always fell short because they didn't have that edge.

If histroy didn't have Judaisim, the ten commandments wouldn't exist. People would be murdering and raping each other on a mass scale without accountability. Judaism brought discipline to the world. You should not ignore the violence that paganism brought with it, one good example is sacrifice. Things where not all that nice and rosy as you make it sound.