Civilization: cultures or nations? - Page 4

Ned · May 26, 2002, 01:29

That is true. But again, the reason the period from Nerva to Commodus is deemed the happy period is because the transfer of power was both peaceful and to a successor picked for merit, not to the emperor's son(s). Aurelius actually failed the empire and began its decline when he named his own son as his successor.

Oligarf · May 26, 2002, 14:24

Knew that about the consuls, but I found the 3-year period on average very short.

Taking the following up thing to today: Absolute reigners today still have trouble with their following-up, don't think Rome was so special in that. I wonder what will happen when Saddam will die.

Dauphin · May 26, 2002, 14:30

The USA will invade before that bridge is reached.

lorddread · May 26, 2002, 15:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Oligarf
Knew that about the consuls, but I found the 3-year period on average very short.

Taking the following up thing to today: Absolute reigners today still have trouble with their following-up, don't think Rome was so special in that. I wonder what will happen when Saddam will die.

Emperor Length of riegn in years
Augustus 45
Tiberius 23
Caligula 4
Claudius 13
Nero 14
Galba 1
Otho 4 months
Vitellius 11 months (Unsurper)
Vespasian 10
Titus 2
Domitian 15
Nerva 2
Trajan 19
Hadrian 21
Antoninus Pius 23
Marcus Aurelius 19
Lucuis Verus 8 (Co emperor w/ Marcu Aurelius)
Commodus 12
Pertinax 3 months
Didius Julinius 3 months
Septimus Severus 18
Caracalla 6
Geta 11 months (co emperor)
Macrinus 1
Elagabalus 4
Alexander Severus 13
Max Thrax 3
Gordian I less then 28 days
Gordian II less than 28 days
Pupienus 3 months
Balbinus 3 months
Gordian III 6
Phillip Arab 5
Decius 2
Gallus 2 months
Amellianus 88 days
Valerian 7 years (died a Persian slave)
Gallienus 13
Caludius II 15
Quintillus 8 months
Aurelian 5

In the first half of the Roman empire we have 41 emperors 17 emperors who reigned less than 3 years, many of those reigning less than 1 year. Most we murdered.

My question is why anyone would have wanted the job.

Oligarf · May 27, 2002, 16:25

Rome:
Hoping that he will survive, maybe?
And nice work, good list lorddread
Iraq:
And Europe doesn't want to take action in Iraq, so I must see it happen first before I believe it.

Dauphin · May 27, 2002, 17:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Oligarf
Iraq:
And Europe doesn't want to take action in Iraq, so I must see it happen first before I believe it.

When did that ever have any bearing on US unilateralism.

lorddread · May 27, 2002, 22:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin

When did that ever have any bearing on US unilateralism.

We have already been "spanked" once by the moderator. Let's not have it done again.

Oligarf · May 28, 2002, 13:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
When did that ever have any bearing on US unilateralism.

I guess, this time

Dauphin · May 28, 2002, 14:30

Quote:

Originally posted by lorddread

We have already been "spanked" once by the moderator. Let's not have it done again.

I will desist.

Fresno · May 30, 2002, 14:59

Iraq: I'm afraid an American invasion there would only worsen the situation in the Middle East, and it would be a disaster for the Kurdish in North Iraq. But I have to admit Saddam might be dangerous, so I don't know the answer. When operation Desert Fox started I also wasn't sure wether to support it or not. I find it hard to decide what to think of those actions, the same goes for the bombing of Yugoslavia and more recently Afghanistan. In all these situations reports about bombed hospitals and refugees worried me, though.

lorddread · May 30, 2002, 23:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Fresno
Iraq: I'm afraid an American invasion there would only worsen the situation in the Middle East, and it would be a disaster for the Kurdish in North Iraq. But I have to admit Saddam might be dangerous, so I don't know the answer. When operation Desert Fox started I also wasn't sure wether to support it or not. I find it hard to decide what to think of those actions, the same goes for the bombing of Yugoslavia and more recently Afghanistan. In all these situations reports about bombed hospitals and refugees worried me, though.

Let me pose some friendly questions. Before I do, a word of caution to those to get upset with these questions, "Please don't get us smacked by the forum people again."

Questions:

1. How would an invasion of Iraq worsen the plight of the Kurds? Saddam has already used Mustard, VS (worst chemical munition there is) and Sarin on them a total of 17 times, killing approx 19000 and crippling upwards of 24000.

2. What hospital has the US bombed? Is it propaganda you have heard or has the Red Cross actually pointed out a hospital? There was a firefight within a hospital in Afghanstan. That was started by 4 Taliban who snuck hand grenades in. Could this be what you are refering to?

3. Why do so many people hear a report of thousands dead and instantly believe it? It was reported in Afghanastan, Yugoslavia, and Jenin (refugee camp), but everytime Amnesty goes there and investigates, they find no slaughter. Yet people still believe the lies. Why?

Oligarf · June 1, 2002, 10:15

Possible the truth is somewhere in between, and probably there where it belongs. Because when bullets fly around someone will get hurt, good or wrong.
And about the Kurdish, can't imagine they don't want to kick Saddam's out of his palace and do something to him which I'd better not say here.

Fresno · June 1, 2002, 13:56

Of course the truth is in de middle. I'm not saying everything Saddam, Osama and Milosevic said is true, of course there will be much propaganda. But saying it's all lies is just too simple. Even the Nato confirmed afterwards there have been mistakes in the Kosovo war.

About the Kurds; what I meant is that when a war breaks out the first what Saddam will do is conquering the autonomous Kurdish zone in northern Iraq. And because of all his crimes against this people I'm affraid it would only harm the Kurds, not help them.

As I said, maybe an invasion is the only answer, I just find it very hard to decide what to think of it.

Oligarf · June 1, 2002, 15:02

Kurdish: One thing is for sure, this situation ain't good for them.

And where people are, mistakes are made.

Ned · June 1, 2002, 16:00

I presume that the US is in close contact with the Kurds and is taking their wishes into account. What I understand is that they want to be part of a coalition Iraqi government, not independent. This seems to be a significant change in objectives.

In this link, the Arabs and Turkey are said to be working on a deal to provide an independent Kurdestan.

http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/usdefense/GIU040998.html

If anyone knows about recent US-Kurd discussions, please post a link.

Oligarf · June 1, 2002, 16:06

Not me... Anyone???

Oligarf · June 1, 2002, 16:07

And about those Arabs and Turks, hard to believe but if true, a good prospect.

Fresno · June 1, 2002, 16:10

I read a huge article in a Dutch opinion magazine, but I'm not going to translate it. It basically said Iraqi tanks can drive in the Kurdish area any minute. People mainly wanted peace.

lorddread · June 1, 2002, 16:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Fresno
About the Kurds; what I meant is that when a war breaks out the first what Saddam will do is conquering the autonomous Kurdish zone in northern Iraq. And because of all his crimes against this people I'm affraid it would only harm the Kurds, not help them.

Saddam cannot invade the kurds. The terrain is terrible. Tanks and APC's cannot use the roads (mined by the Kurds). The terrain is a defenders paradise. Think of the mountains in northern and eastern Afghanastan. This is the reason he resorted to nerve gas and mustard gas to put down the last rebellion.

Plus the Kurds are under US and British air cover. (Combat Air Patrol (CAP)) Saddam's airforce tried once to counter that and now have over 250 fewer planes. (Not counting the ones that flew to Iran).

Helicopters are the best tool for the terrain but cannot be used because of the CAP.

Same for the Shiite muslims in the south near Kuwait. (Southern no fly zone). No what terrifies the US and all its neighbors is Saddam knowing that the end is near, and all that waits for him is death, will lash out with his remaining weapons of mass destruction. This could include setting off a nuke in Bahgdad. A kind of if I can't keep my country, neither can you.

Most of the equipment he bought from Europe and Asia to build a nuke has never been found. Various intelligence agencies believe that if Saddam has built a nuke (and it is not hard once you have the U238 or P235) he does not have the equipment to miniturize it enough to put on a missile (this is the hard part) and therefore it is too large to move except on a truck. This large and probably dirty weapon could not be used as a tactical weapon but it could be used as a weapon of last result.

Even if Saddam doesn't have a nuke, he has several thousand tons (yes thousands) of VX, Mustard gases as well as hundreds of tons of antharax, botulism, and probably small pox.

A senario would be him tipping a scud with small pox or VX, and shooting it into Israeli airspace. It would be shot down, but the war head would break apart on impact scattering its dealy cargo.

Small Pox is the deadliest of all the above agents. As the US saw, anthrax can be treated by antibiotics. A nuke can be survived. Botulism can be treated, so can mustard gas (although you lead a tortured life afterwards.) In 1999 the US government launched a test (Dark Winter) where they "inflicted" 3 people (1 person in three different states) with small pox, in order to test the readiness of the US to battle a biological attack. 13 days later they had to cancel the test because it had spun out of control. The final tally was infection in 25 states and 15 countries. They refused to release the number of "deaths" but it estimated to be in the millions. This is the reason Saddam is still alive.

Oligarf · June 1, 2002, 16:25

More good news lorddread?

lorddread · June 1, 2002, 16:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Oligarf
More good news lorddread?

Sorry, just telling the facts.

Oligarf · June 1, 2002, 16:32

That is what I feel most sorry for, and I know this is hanging above our head, but hearing it, that is not nice. But lets say I thankful that you keep me sharp

.

Whoha · June 5, 2002, 14:05

hi everyone, I already posted about iraq and afghanistan in the old troll thread,none of which was addressed, so i'll refrain from doing that here.

lorddread · June 5, 2002, 16:23

Can you tell me what "Inter arma enim silent leges" means and who said it?

Oligarf · June 9, 2002, 17:50

I will look that up for you, if I can find it though. I will need a dictionary to make it sound somewhat correct.