41 replies to this topic

[MSpencer]

Both Caesar and Bush have/had competent administrators working under them, while they rarely do/did much paperwork. Also, it can be said Bush is really trying to help people, he's lowered taxes a bit and made some good appointments. He's also overhauled national security and improved the military, so it can be said that he has helped the people a bit.

[Comrade Kal]

Lowered taxes to win the election. He also lowered public services as a result, so that doesn't count. Also, Caesar did a bit with helping the barbarian tribes (when he wasn't kicking the shit out of them) but Bush isn't doing anything of the sort with his equivalents.

[MSpencer]

Caesar donated tons of money to the citizens and to public welfare.

[MSpencer]

I know, and Bush not only lowered taxes but really improved national security. Don't pick and choose, answer me completely or don't try to formulate a counterpoint.

[Tom]

Tom, you don't know what you're talking about, so stay out

I was joking you muppet

but really improved national security

Funny when national security means bypassing american freedoms however leaving the borders wide open for any so called terrorists to walk in. Your the ones complaining about "illegal aliens" send them back to their home planet and make national or "global" security a truth if you need that much security. Funny how security seems to have become "control."

George W Bush: National Security is my top priority. Yet i see birds flying all over the skies, why not shoot them down they could be carrying bird flu! Your nation is not really that secure.

[Drewry]

I actually like Caesar in history. It was more of augustus who was the real tyrant. I think caesar was falsely portrayed. I dont think bush is caesar, more like a regular aristocrat of the roman republic. You see the entire roman government was flawed. All it did was give more power to the rich, it was a collective tyrany, opposed to the old days of one man ruling. You see caesar put barbarians in the senate, he was really a man of the people. He spent money on progression for the nation etc. If he had not been killed he probably would have established a system in which the lower classes had much more say in the government, and the new conquered territories would move on to progression.

I see caesar and napoleon as very similar. Both are viewed as tyrants but that is not who they really were. Both were really out for progression of the people. Napoleon named himself as leader of the french, not of france. This was very important because it meant he was really out for the people's interests. After Napoleon france went on to creating several republics leading to the one that is used today. Much of napoleonic code is still used. The same is true with caesar, he made social progressions for the advancement of the lower populace, I dont think he was seeking to create a monarchy or an empire of that sort - that was just the propaganda the politicians spreaded to try to pursuade the people against him.

[Komataguri]

Is everyone ignorant to the fact that hunting for a decentralized cell-based group that can move discreetly and send commands from anywhere might just take a long time to find?

[MSpencer]

I was talking to AG about that. In Vietnam, we couldn't have won. We didn't have the manpower, technology, resources, or infrastructure to turn the country upside down, as we were using ARVN soldiers trained by Americans for the majority of the missions, only had several divisions in theater at a time, had no laser guided bombs or cruise missiles, and couldn't use the majority of our doctrine to full effect due to poor air bases and ports. Afghanistan is a different story. If we were to deploy three infantry divisions or so and our entire air force, we could turn the country totally upside down, blowing up houses, caves, and any buildings that might possibly be harboring terrorists. Sure, we'd kill thousands of civilians, it would cost somewhere in the hundreds of billions, we'd lose lots of money, and we'd be hated worldwide, but we would get the bastards, and we'd have to do it right before violating the sovereignty of Pakistan to get any of the runners. Yes, of course we could do it, just nobody would like us doing it. A moderated approach is best, and yes, it will end up a long war.

[Comrade Kal]

Sure, we'd kill thousands of civilians, it would cost somewhere in the hundreds of billions, we'd lose lots of money, and we'd be hated worldwide,

Doesn't usually stop you.

[MSpencer]

If I were in charge it would. If any decent moderate were in charge, it would. Unfortunately we have people as radical as Hitler in charge now.

[Hostile]

I agree, we need more moderates, but that certainly doesn't mean AK-47 wielding commies either. What ever happened to "in the middle?"

It's obvious there are people here who will say Bush is carpet bombing and creating genocide, when we know it isn't true, we also need to keep the powers of the right in check as much as those of the left.

Why does everyone have to be so extreme in thier views? Is there no sanity? What happened to common sense?

[MSpencer]

When I mean moderates, I mean people in the middle. It would be nice if we had more people like that, they tend to be the ones who consider all options and think carefully.

[Hostile]

Like Lieberman and McCain?

[MSpencer]

Yeah pretty much. But McCain is unelectable because he doesn't compromise his beliefs.

[LeninT34]

So basicaly this is going to turn out to be the fourth crusade

[MSpencer]

So basicaly this is going to turn out to be the fourth crusade

I didn't say that. And there already was a Fourth crusade. And a Fifth, and a Sixth, and a Seventh, and an Eighth, and a Ninth.

[Hrod89]

I personally dislike the entire premise of this "war". I don't get how anyone can honestly think that you can totally eliminate a group of people that move underground, have no central power, and (more than likely) have growing numbers. It is not possible to phase out people who wish to harm the United States.

[Tom]

Law of all wars and empires: Kill one and another hundred will rise against you. Emotion is what floods this war and its purely negative, hence it serves us no purpose. People need to stop believing this "war on terrorism" crap. Its only creating more problems day by day.

[MSpencer]

Now is when you're going to bust into ramblings about how the "elite" have "negative karma" which "hurts" "Gaia", the "living" Earth.