If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I wish Braintree was nuked soon, on a day I wasn't there.
id rather it got nuked while i was there, cause i wouldnt want to fall ill and die a slow and painful death from the fallout when i visited to laugh at the victims
No, the truth is far more horrible. Empires rule through alliance and local leadership. Now, get a copy of Livy's The War aganst Hannibal. Comfortable? You might want to get a drink, its a large book. Its OK, I can wait. Back already? Right. Now, observe the strategy of Hannibal. You see what he's doing, yes? How he managed to lay Italy to the sword, defeat Consular Army after Consular Army. Alright, now skip forward 30 years, to what is happening in Hispania, the war booty and Triumphs, why they never pacified the region fully. Now, can you see what I mean?
Rome was an ideal, it showed people why it was better, showed them how to build roads, bridges, towns, irrigation systems as much as it showed it could conquer if it wanted to. Many chose to join the Empire because it was a better life. The Romans only conquered those who didnt think they were Superior to them, then enslaved them to make their own lives easier and propogate the belief in their own superiority until they reached a point of arrogance so great it all collapsed around them.
Not all Empires are like that or do things ways, Rome was especially talented at Empire building.
Actually, most empires have a basic similar military and legislative relationship, with a corporate system profiting and priming the pumps for future expansions. The structure was similar from Rome, the Swedes, the Japanese and the British. Thats why political philosophy and International Relations scholars can identify them as empires.
Secondly, Hannibal only lost because he failed to meet with his younger brother. Had the two armies joined, they would have sacked the Eternal City. You are probably thinking there was ill discipline because he hired mercaneries, however, Hannibal actually destroyed 8 Consular armies, thats killed or captured quarter of a million men. He left Rome without an army in the field, because he took out his allies first. Which was my original point. Seperate the local allies, and the imperial strcuture comes crashing down. Britain understood that, thats why they made sure they put a minority ethnic/religion in charge of their many conquests, so they would be dependent and not turn on their masters.
Thirdly, there are more than just a few parallels between Rome and modern day America. Both are having the same problem, criminals in high power pushing the constitution to limits it was never designed to withstand. Eventually, the Romans got so angry they welcome the First Triumvirate of Caesar, Pompey and Crassius, despite its illegal abuse of power, because it worked. Rome, like America, is a highly militarized culture. Rome, like America, was the central plank of international trade and stable currency. Should things get that bad in America (lets face it, Bush is Sulla more than Augustus or Caesar), it will not be allowed to fall. The Republic will wither and die on populist whims and conspiracies, but an Empire will rise, because its the obvious solution. It brings stability, it keeps the economy going and it usually satisfies the military (assuming they are not complicit in it).
However, in terms of the Empire expanding, its conquered subjects often welcomed the conquest, embraced Rome and often petitioned to join the empire an be part of it, benefiting from its many advantages.
This is not the case of America.
Hannibals troops were disciplined and followed him, i said he was not. He was a brilliant General, but like many brilliant Generals he underestimated his enemy. He thought himself superior and victory would come to him. This resulted in Rome losing many battles and armies to him, but enevitably out manouvering him, conquering his Empire, that of Carthage and eventually crushing what little armies he had left. Rome was the superior of all in the world, no matter how old, wise or powerful their enemy, they were victorious, until they became complacemement and refused to expand, refused to conquer and refused to evolve their empire. Thus, stagnation, old blood, decodance and defeat came to pass.
Donald 'Ultimate Cunt' Rumsfeld: Iranian troops ''causing the harm in Iraq''
You really have to laugh... :rolleyes:
But what of all the small communities that were preyed upon by the Gauls? What of those who suffered at the hands of the Carthaginians? What of the Eqyptians? Well, it was more fear of one enemy that pushed them to favour Rome as an ally and request to join. Egypt feared conquest so payed tribute to Rome, only then to be conquered anyway as Octavian crushed the last elements of discent to his rise to Emperor. The same goes for many who were victims of the dominant forces proior to Romes arrival.
It was more a case, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Or is it a case of Better the Devil you do NOT know? I am unsure, but never less not all were opposed to the Roman "Ideal" or "way of life" that was available. Rome didnt have enough troops to surpress an entire Empire of that size, it was more a case of appearing, showing they had it right and everyone else had it wrong, then leaving after passing on their knowledge and not coming back again so long as taxes were paid. Actually it was a Brilliant way of holding an Empire, winning the hearts and minds of those around, if they couldnt, killing them by crucifixion.
I admit, not realy a viable option for America...you just don't get that many Crucifixions nowadays do you.
When I, for my part, address the criminality of US militant foreign policy it is in view of the hegemonic corporate aims for which our targets are chosen and subjugated, mostly (until most recently) under the veneer of "international" legitimisation (i.e. UN approval), however fraudulent I also find such "legitimising" charades to be.
It is, in my view, the ultimate death knell of any world power that it seeks to impose its interests by force upon others, however well intentioned the arguments therefor might be. Overextension, hubris and ultimately self-preservatory repression and authoritarianism are the characteristic consequences of allowing the imperially-minded to pursue their expansionist aspirations. This is the lesson which history should have taught us long ago, but as we see has not.
Crucifixion? Good! Out the door, line on the left, one cross each....NEXT!
Ah, if only we had all watched Ropocop and seen what OCP were like back in the 80's, then we might never have reached this point where Haliburton, et al dominate the Western worlds foreign policy.
:chin:
There will be none of this, we are not real, we are in a machine nonesense here!
Anyone see the new film Stay?? That has a world is unreal theme.