Favonius Cornelius Posted July 14, 2006 Report Share Posted July 14, 2006 (and i would be suprised if Bush gets one day deified) That'll be the day that I die as the song goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neos Dionysos Posted July 14, 2006 Report Share Posted July 14, 2006 Where are the WMD's? (I mean aside from their imaginations.) I've always had this personal feeling concerning the WMD's. It was a huge issue for both parties, and the Democrats did not waste a chance to use it to attack Bush's policy, but then, overnight, the subject is completely dropped, (by both sides), just a few months before election and never again brought back up in the media or political floor. Honestly, I'm willing to bet we found WMD's but that what Saddam had was left over from what we supplied him in the 80's or new ones made from material of our stuff. Now, call me crazy but to say "We found WMD's... and they were once ours we gave Saddam" would be suicide for both parties and really hurt the image of the US, (like that exists anymore). Another reason they were so, 'sure', is again, because we know what we gave them... Oh, and sadly I cannot support this so I will say this is rumor, I've been told that it was not just us saying he had them, but intel from our European and Middle Eastern allies as well... so... ... in either case. Just some food for thought. Some striking similarities Bush doesnt wear a toga... and Augustus was not from Texas... To get to my point is - imo there are no similarities... (and i would be suprised if Bush gets one day deified) Well, Reagan wasn't all the popular IIRC, during his terms especially the second and yet he's regarded, by majority, as one of the best presidents we ever had. I'm willing to bet that if Iraq turns out 'minimally succuessful', (and add propaganda and a pretty smile and you make it seem like complete success), then I see no reason why in 20 years he'll be another, "Good", if not worshipped President with a personality cult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludovicus Posted July 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2006 I didn't compare him, the topic starter did that. Ofcourse Bush is not a good politician, he can't even talk properly, but he's surrounded by hawks, and he's a straightforward thinking guy. I'm the topic starter. My intention was not to judge Bush's abilities as a politician nor to probe his mental capabilities. As a life long reader in Roman history and a former Latin major in college it seems to me that Bush's propaganda machine (all presidents and leaders use them) is very similiar to Augustus's. Both men ended a long tradition of political rights. In Bush's case, he's putting the US Constitution through the paper shredder. E.g. internal spying, abrogating Congressional powers for himself, and attacking long held citizen entitlements such as Social Security. All these radical departures from US traditional democratic values he covers over with appeals intended to make him appear as the upholder of traditional values: the family, freedom of religion, and private enterprise. Augustus ended the Republic and with that the power of Roman institutions such as the Senate. His propaganda depicted him as the defender of the Roman famly, ancestral religion, and public morals. His new political order, in fact, spelled the end Republican values, a more democratic set of principles. Perhaps a difference should be noted here: While Augustus's reign ushered in relative peace throughout the Empire, Bush's reign has propelled the world in the oppositie direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted July 14, 2006 Report Share Posted July 14, 2006 Perhaps something to consider: The Augustan Peace was won only after many years of strife and conquest. Peace ultimately comes at the point of a sword, the well wishes of pacifists not withstanding. Bush may be incompetent, corrupt and a posturing sockpuppet for neoconservative interests. But every radical jihadist bombed to smithereens under his watch preserves the liberty of Western Ciivlization, as far as I am concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlapse Posted July 14, 2006 Report Share Posted July 14, 2006 You know... if there ever were to be a huge UNRV convention, I think that once a few people got drunk, all hell would break loose and a brawl would ensue... probably with some re-enactment weapons. I would probably participate. You know Moonlapse I still have my old Crossman pellet gun and with a few beverages and a nice quiet pond with docile ducks and geese I could probably be persuaded to display my skill at missing harmless creatures 3 feet in front of me. And then we bring the pellet gun to the brawl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pertinax Posted July 14, 2006 Report Share Posted July 14, 2006 wasnt Augustus taller than Bush? Yes, but he wore a skirt. So that made him look taller? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.Clodius Posted July 14, 2006 Report Share Posted July 14, 2006 wasnt Augustus taller than Bush? Yes, but he wore a skirt. So that made him look taller? No, it wasn't the skirt but the platform caligae that made him tower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Valerius Scerio Posted July 14, 2006 Report Share Posted July 14, 2006 Bush may be incompetent, corrupt and a posturing sockpuppet for neoconservative interests. But every radical jihadist bombed to smithereens under his watch preserves the liberty of Western Ciivlization, as far as I am concerned. What's your point? Bush wasn't the only person who would have attacked. Actually, he made it a lot worse. Iraq hated terrorists; Saddam stamped down on them hard. But Bush made the world just a little more dangerous. Moreover, the Pax Romana was internal fighting - a civil war - yet foreign wars continued. No parallel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Favonius Cornelius Posted July 14, 2006 Report Share Posted July 14, 2006 What's your point? Bush wasn't the only person who would have attacked. Actually, he made it a lot worse. Iraq hated terrorists; Saddam stamped down on them hard. Well...for the record Saddam did pay out large sums of money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers back in the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted July 14, 2006 Report Share Posted July 14, 2006 (edited) What's your point? Bush wasn't the only person who would have attacked. Actually, he made it a lot worse. Iraq hated terrorists; Saddam stamped down on them hard. Well...for the record Saddam did pay out large sums of money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers back in the day. True! $25,000 a boom. But he didn't 'run' them. Edited July 15, 2006 by Gaius Octavius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Valerius Scerio Posted July 15, 2006 Report Share Posted July 15, 2006 (edited) For that, we should have taken out Syria, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and other countries who have since succumbed. All evidence points to Saddam ridding his country of weapons of mass destruction, and yet we still bomb his country to smithereens (in the process taking out more civilians than Palestinian bombers have done in the past half century). Edited July 15, 2006 by Q Valerius Scerio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlapse Posted July 15, 2006 Report Share Posted July 15, 2006 I think Aghanistan and probably North Korea should have been resolved before ever considering actions against anyone else. I realize that it wasn't just Bush who believed in the existence of WMD's, but my line of thinking goes something like this.... it would be wrong for me to break into my neighbor's house and kill him simply because I have a hunch that he's got a gun and he wants to kill me. As I recall, the only way I can legally kill him is if hes on my property and has an obvious physical intent to kill me. Consider North Korea, determined to prove that they have the capability to hit the U.S. with a nuclear bomb... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted July 15, 2006 Report Share Posted July 15, 2006 All evidence points to Saddam ridding his country of weapons of mass destruction In the weeks before Iraq invaded, there were loads of unaccounted WMDs. In hindsight, it appears as though he really did destroy them (unless we are to believe they are hiding in Syria someplace), but let's not rewrite history: many, many, many sincere people believed that Saddam possessed WMDs and that they posed an intolerable threat should they get in the hands of al Qaeda. This belief was very probably wrong, but it was based on intelligence reports coming from London, Washington, and even Paris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted July 15, 2006 Report Share Posted July 15, 2006 This belief was very probably wrong, but it was based on intelligence reports coming from London, Washington, and even Paris. A little bit of revisionist history. Rome thought that it was a crock of carp, but berlusconi did as told. Same with London and Tony. Paris believed it??? Washington didn't believe it either. It was Pres. chinney's non-intelligence squad that produced this little bit of mental feculence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Valerius Scerio Posted July 15, 2006 Report Share Posted July 15, 2006 In fact, much of Washington's intelligence later came out and said the White House got the facts wrong. Valerie Plume ring a bell? The only sincere people were the ones duped by the President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts