Saddam's Death May Bring Reprisals?

Discussion in 'Your Bloody Soap Box' started by Carrera, Dec 30, 2006.

  1. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,131
    Likes Received:
    115
    I don't believe, for one second, that the US "rationale" for the invasion of Iraq had anything whatsoever to do with "democracy".
    It was an act of imperialistic expansion - pure and simple.




    The Iraq economy under Saddam during the 1980's was highly productive economically.
    The Iraqi economy approached first world performance levels.
    In addition investment in infrastructure and investment in higher education would have left many first world country's in the ha'penny place.




    Professor Niall Ferguson has stated that throughout history, there have been 68 empires or dynasties which had imperialistic ambitions and which sought to impose their regimes upon other sovereign entities.
    From the ancient times such as the Celts through to the Romans through to the British : from Genghis Khan to Leonid Breshnev : are all accounted for within Ferguson's 68 dynasties.
    All 67 of those dynasties have disappeared or have retracted to their generic territorial locations.
    Ferguson argues that the USA is the 68 empire/dynasty - and that this dynasty/empire will fail to assert it's imperialistic tendencies.
     


  2. CDAKIAHONDA

    CDAKIAHONDA New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2005
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes! And are we watching the genesis of the next?
     
  3. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,131
    Likes Received:
    115
    I don't know to be honest.

    Professor Ferguson did a fascinating three part documentary on the concept of empire/dynasty on Channel 4 last year and he wrote his best selling book on this topic.
    According to Ferguson, most empires/dynasties imploded due to complacency from within the ruling empire/dynasty - and not from any external threat.
     
  4. Carrera

    Carrera New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'd say the Romans didn't do too badly. The difference between the Romans and the U.S. was that the Romans were far far better at dealing with the so-called subject nations. They fully understood the cultures they were dealing with and observed norms of respect usually.
    I mean, take Britain: The invasion and occupation of this island wasn't specifically accomplished militarily. Julius Caesar was, in fact, fairly accomplished at talking to the indigenous population, winning them over and granting Roman Citizenship - which was held in high esteem.
    I believe that had the Romans decided to "invade" Iraq they'd have had water and electricity running in a matter of weeks. The lack of respect shown to Saddam probably wouldn't have happened. In those rare cases where there were abuses, history shows the islanders rose up and caused all sorts of problems.
    However, I agree with you that imperialism did come back to haunt even the Romans which is why I prefer the non-imperialistic societies such as Sparta, maybe. Spartans never invaded anyone unless they were attacked first and when they did take to arms they were pretty awesome.

     
  5. CDAKIAHONDA

    CDAKIAHONDA New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2005
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, the Romans did a good job of integrating other cultures. It didn't hurt that they brought a lot of benefits with them. After the initial Ceasarian conquests, many of the Germanic tribes wanted to join Rome and enjoy the Roman lifestyle. The Romans resisted this barbarian integration for a while but then realized, among other things that the Gothic tribes could help fight on other fronts. Prejudices remained though, and the Goth issue was just delayed for a while....(Let's go here next:D )

    Then came Christianity, you couldn't just integrate a Christian, he won't let you. The poly-theistic pagan gods of Rome can't exist with The ONE god. You can't just conquer Christians, and if you kill them, well, the martyrs just inspire more. Mono-theism is like that. Must've driven the pagan emperors mad!

    "What do you mean, they don't want what WE want?" said Bushimus Minimus.

    Then as the Empire devided into Eastern and Western, the tolerances went away even further as Christianity became the State religeon. Inclusion was out, and the Empire began to collapse.

    I think Julian the Apostate had a clue, he knew that his Legions were still pretty poly-theistic, and he felt this was perhaps where Romes power had come from. In a twist of Irony, he bagan to persecute the Christians. He fell on the Persian campaign to re-establish the "greatness" of Rome just a short time later. The Christians came running back, re-established Christianity as the state Religeon and.....

    So yeah, "Inclusionary Rome worked," "Exclusionary Rome fell." Not to hammer the Christians, if it wasn't them, it would have been something else more than likely. If we're the latest Empire, "Exclusionary Islamic fanaticism" may do it to us, they're mono-theistic too.
     
  6. Carrera

    Carrera New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    "After the initial Ceasarian conquests, many of the Germanic tribes wanted to join Rome and enjoy the Roman lifestyle."

    Rome's attempt to integrate the Gauls and Germans half succeeded. During the Germanic invasions of the Huns and Vandals, Visigoths and Ostrogoths e.t.c., some of the ethnic groups did stay loyal to the Roman Army and fought for the Roman order. However, very many did not. A significant percentage defected to their kinsmen. Moreover, there were very few indigenous Romans left in the army so we're talking about a vastly different army than the one that beat Hannibal and Carthage when Rome was a Republic (at the height of its power).
    Another thing to consider: In the end, it was the exclusive Greek World and the East that outlived the more inclusive Romans. That is, most people took up Greek language and spoke Greek on the street after Latin died a death.

    "Then came Christianity, you couldn't just integrate a Christian, he won't let you. The poly-theistic pagan gods of Rome can't exist with The ONE god."

    Have you considered the following? Rome had its 9/11. This was the huge fire that gutted the city at the time of Nero, killing thousands of people. There are 2 speculations as to the fire (which was worse than 9/11): Either Nero started the fire or Christian apolyctic extremists were behind it.
    Here's the amusing bit - there were ancient Wurm-style conspiracy theories 2000 years ago. I mean, same as Wurm (and even my mother) believe Bush was behind 9/11, many folks back then believed Nero was playing his lyre to the flames and reciting the Sack Of Troy.
    So, is Bush an updated version of Nero?
    At any rate, what did Nero do after the attack? Yep, he started to persecute Christians, setting wild beasts on them in the arena and apparently having St Peter nailed upside down on a cross and Paul beheaded.
    What did Bush do after 9/11? Yep, he initiated a persecution of Moslems (especially Iraqis).
    Yet both Nero and Bush were accused of mass murder and both have been accused of using scapegoats to get themselves off the hook.
    The effects? Nero's persecutions had the effect of transforming Christianity from "just another religion" to a huge, global faith that spread from Europe to Africa and beyond.
    What effect is Bush's campaign having today? Well, there is little doubt. Islam appears to be spreading but also radical Islam has become 50 times stronger today than before 9/11.
    That's why Bush has totally screwed up. He never understood that where you have martyrs and victims of abuse, you only fan the flames of whatever belief sytem you attempt to crush by force. Bush's major failure was to attack and humiliate Moslems, putting revenge above all other priorities. Heaven knows what will happen in the Sunni World now Bush humiliated and disrespected a former Sunni dictator and simply trampled on Arab sensitivities on a national Holy Day.
    I see big trouble ahead.



     
  7. Carrera

    Carrera New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just typed "Bush and Nero" into Google and, shock and horror, two minds think alike here. Other people, it seems, have made comparisons between the two. Here is what this Nina Hamilton says:

    "The supposed "cakewalk" war goes up in flames. Yet there are no Presidential speeches expressing concern about the US troops, no re-assuring words to the American public. At least, not until Saturday when President Bush serves up bromides on his weekly radio program: "Our decisive actions will continue until these enemies of democracy are dealt with." (3)

    It's reminiscent of the Roman Emperor, Nero, happily fiddling during the nine-day fire that devastated Rome in AD 64.

    Actually the Roman Emperor, Nero, didn't fiddle. He dressed up in robes, strummed his lyre and sang about the fall of Troy. Meanwhile, block after block of Rome went up in flames. About 200,000 people became homeless. (4)

    The fire that leveled much of Rome's center city was dramatic. Flames burned brightly, leaping sky-high. Nero enjoyed lavish spectacles. Why not express his awe with a little lyre strumming?

    The citizenry of Rome was appalled by the destruction. Rumors quickly erupted that Nero had deliberately set the fire. But the arson charge has never been proven.

    Besides being callous about suffering, what else do Bush and Nero have in common?

    An illegitimate ascension to power? Nero got rid of competition for the post of Emperor with a little poisoning, a few dagger thrusts, knocking off both his step-brother, Britannicus, and his mother, Agrippina. Not that Bush engaged in actual murder, but in terms of the US Supreme Court's dubious anointing in 2000, he certainly "got away with murder."

    A taste for gawdy, public displays? Nero loved to make a spectacle of himself. He dressed up (often in transgender costumes), recited bawdy and macabre lyrics, acted in disreputable plays. Since the Emperor craved applause young men -- in the thousands -- were hired to attend the performances. They were coached to applaud wildly at the right moments. (5)

    Bush would cringe at the idea of transgender costumes. Still think about Bush's carefully orchestrated landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln in full pilot regalia (complete with a padded crotch, according to some pundits). There's the elaborately staged entrance -- and quick exit -- from a hanger in Baghdad with a plastic stuffed turkey. These spectacles have a touch of Neronian megalomania.

    The President's crass joking at the Radio and Television Correspondent's dinner on March 24th seals the case. Bush pretends to look for weapons of mass destruction. He peeks under the desk in the Oval Office, peers out the window - all the while joking, "Nope, no weapons over here" and "Maybe, under here." It's classic Nero buffoonery.

    Other similarities? Nero couldn't stand a lack of applause. Soldiers beat up those audience members at the various contests Nero starred in (as lyre-player, singer, dancer, or chariot-racer) who didn't applaud enthusiastically enough. Persons not sufficiently laudatory were quickly removed from his entourage. (6)

    This prickliness is reminiscent of the White House's hatchet job on anybody who dares to question Bush policy. A case in point is the quick punishment of ex-Ambassador to Gabon, Joseph Wilson, after he punctured the alleged plot by Saddam to buy uranium from Niger or the vicious slurs about Richard A. Clarke.

    There are big differences between Nero and Bush. Nero threw massive numbers of Christians to the lions. He also dallied with castrated boys. Clearly, actions President Bush would abhor.

    Yet another difference: Nero's interest in empire was tepid. Unlike Bush who likes to topple governments halfway around the globe, Nero was too fascinated by bawdy saturnalias, gladiator contests, and chariot races at home to care about distant lands.

    We also won't get rid of Bush as easily as Rome dispensed with Nero. Declared an enemy of the people, the 31-year-old Roman Emperor slunk off and committed suicide.

    No such luck is coming our way in the US.
     
  8. CDAKIAHONDA

    CDAKIAHONDA New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2005
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, again we agree, although you seem to like to take a point out of a linear argument and isolate it. Not a criticism, because your arguments follow a linear flow as well, and I appreciate the advocacy (you devil you.) :D

    It follows that the non-syncretic properties of Christianity's rise in Rome led to its demise. It would be an oversimplification to say that Rome was fully syncretic before Christianity as well. As we agree, the synthesis of Roman and Gothic, Persian and yes Greek was not without struggle. No culture can be completely non-syncretic as we know, but the mono-theistic views of Christianity view the process as a "corruption" of "revealed truth."

    Although the Greeks were very syncretic with Alexander.

    Bush and Nero are of the same cloth, or are driven by the same forces? Does the time make the man, or.....?

    Also, since highly exclusive societies by nature require a more rigid (outwardly at least) appearance of conformance, they by definition gain more complete control. "You gotta go along to get along." The Church threw society into a great chasm of intolerance and stagnation pretty quickly.
     
  9. slovakguy

    slovakguy Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    33
    ...just to put a fine point on things, the war was an unmitigated success for the u.s. and brits. it is the aftermath of that victory which bush and his band of chicken hawks which is an unmitigated disaster...

    ...strangely enough it got me thinking that the true exit strategy for bush is to declare it a loss and extract the troops. (taking my cues here from vietnam.) twenty years down the road, iraq should have quieted down enough for the capitalists to get back in there with nike sweatshops and b.p.-amoco oil tankers...
     
  10. sogood

    sogood New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2006
    Messages:
    2,148
    Likes Received:
    0
    To be even finer, it's the initial battle that was the success, and the war was an unmitigated disaster. There was no victory in this war for the US. Bush was just delusional when he announced it. :D
     
  11. Carrera

    Carrera New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    As you will already know, the Republican Romans at the times of Caesar were austere and simplistic. The hedonism, exhibitionism and "wanton living" came later on :eek: , probably around the time of Tiberius.
    My own view is the simplistic, rustic values of the Romans were what led to its rise as the number one global power. The traditionalists didn't take kindly to the introduction of Judaism, Christianity and Greek Mystery belief systems as they figured it didn't make up the basic ideology that made Rome an Empire.
    Incidentally, have you ever seen that comic movie called Pleasantville which I liked? It was about 2 American teenagers who watch a fifties soap in black and white. They are then transported into the soap opera where everything is in fifties black and white. It kind of juxtaposed fifties America with the modern era but showed a simpler way of life when people were less fat and more able to live without luxuries.


     
  12. Carrera

    Carrera New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    Looking at that war, it seems as if the U.S. was fighting itself. They didn't give the Iraqis any opportunity to co-operate as there was nothing in it for the Iraqis.
    From the onset, the Iraqis were treated badly. I mean, virtually all the former Sunnis wound up without employment so ask yourself what you would do as a Sunni in that situation? Sure, you'd join the insurgency.
    Then it was one cock-up after another: Prisoner abuses, dismantling the Iraqi Army and State bureaucracy and police and now the sectarian killing of Saddam by jeering Shia in masks.
    So, basically I don't care how many troops Bush sends to Iraq. Sure, large numbers of troops will help control Baghdad for a shorter period of time but there will also be a bigger target on hand. Without a doubt, more troops will be killed as time goes by and the quagmire will without end. To make matters worse, if Bush quits, the Saudis and other Sunni groups will move in. After some 3000 deaths and 40,000 wounded they may just end up with another Iraqi dictator - whoever comes out on top.




     
  13. sogood

    sogood New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2006
    Messages:
    2,148
    Likes Received:
    0
    No surprise at all, when the US forces massacred the Iraqi troops on their run up to Baghadad ie. Killing relatives of local civilians. Then it went on with collateral damages to the innocent civilian population. So even before the troops got close to Baghadad, they've already made local enemies. Co-operation with an invader? They are dreaming.

    The US can increase as much troop as they like and I bet it won't make much difference. The fact of the matter is, the insurgents are fighting for a cause while the US troops are demoralized and wanting to go home. There'll be more blood baths and killing of "suspected" insurgents, and the US will still exit as the loser.
     
  14. wolfix

    wolfix New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,756
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think this is a waste of time and money.... The Iraq's had a chance for a good fresh start after having one of the world's biggest mass murders as a leader. And with that fresh start they have done nothing to bring a democratic government to Iraq but kill each other.
    Thye are not capable of governing themselves. It takes civilized people to do that.
    I say the US should pull out and watch them create another horrible place for themselves. And the posters that state Iraq was a great
    place with Saddam at the controls need to re-think that one....
     
  15. CDAKIAHONDA

    CDAKIAHONDA New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2005
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    ...walk in another man's shoes, or sandals. Americans, any "westerners" are no more civilized than anyother culture. We have more stuff. Human nature is what it is, and if you believe that this is just an ethnic problem or religeous one then you may just be part of the problem. In fact, I'm part of the problem, everyone is.

    Could you kill a man? No? Yes? ....depends? Yeah,it depends doesn't it.

    Would you steal a tv Guide to see what shows you might miss tonight? Would you steal a loaf of bread if your family was starving? The monetary value of a loaf of bread and a magazine are roughly equivalent. But you, or I, or anyone for that matter could easily justify the one and not the other. (Hit me with relative consequenses, it's what we do...get it? It's what we've ALWAYS done.)

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to preach. "I am though I know;) " It's just we can't help feeling superior in our cozy little situations in front of flat panel monitors. That's Human too. It's a survival method, it's evolution.

    There is a vacuum in Iraq now that Saddam is gone. Someone will rise or be stuffed into it to fill it, and everyone (group) wants to position themselves to make sure that they're represented (or at least not un-represented.) The US is the problem because we give (in reality or in appearance) the advantage to one group, a BIG advantage, with precedent. That would require a big response. What would you do? Depends doesn't it..? "Could you kill a man?"

    That's why were talking history boys and girls, it's all right there, Nero, Bush, America and Iraq, The Romans and the Goths and the Persians (who invented "civilization" in many ways.) Like any other crime/event my friends, the understanding is in the "motive" not the resultant action. The motives are there and don't seem to go away. Not yet anyway.
     
  16. sogood

    sogood New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2006
    Messages:
    2,148
    Likes Received:
    0
    Choosing from two evils, at least Saddam's regime kept civil order in the country. While that so called "liberation" by the US directly and indirectly killed more civilians than Saddam did for many many years. Take your pick!
     
  17. Carrera

    Carrera New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    "And with that fresh start they have done nothing to bring a democratic government to Iraq but kill each other."

    The Iraqi response to this invasion does seem confusing. They are indeed killing one another but there is some kind of logic behind it all underneath all the mayhem.
    Saddam, in actual fact, set the ball rolling with a plan to thwart Bush's plans by arming the population of Iraq, opening up the prisons and disbanding the army. That's how the looting began and Saddam seemed to know this is what would happen.
    Then you have fanatics such as Al Quaida getting in on the act and it's these more radical groups that seem to have plotted the destruction of Iraq as a country by stirring up sectarian violence between Shia and Sunnis.
    Then, you have Iran. Iran is probably more than grateful to Bush for killing Saddam Hussein and overthrowing the major opposition to a Shia superstate within the Middle East. However, here is what's important to understand: The Iranians have been fairly smart if you look at this from their own perspective. The thing is, if the Iranians had done nothing and not interfered in Iraq, they knew for sure they would be invaded next. No doubt about that. If Bush had been able to simply install a puppet government in Iraq without a hitch, Iran would surely have been next. That's obviously why the Iranians set about arming resistance groups, supplying arms and pushing the U.S. into such a quagmire, they would be too busy and bogged down to pay much attention to Iran.
    Exactly what the Iranians need in order to acquire the atom bomb - plenty of time. Personally I find the idea of a nuclear Iran a frightening prospect but that's what happens when you have a greedy, oil-grubbing Texan in the White House i.e. short term planning.
    So, it would seem you have a situation where U.S. troops are in the middle of a huge power struggle and this is where the motivation lies:
    (1) The former Saddam Bathists are fighting to overthrow the U.S. imposed, pro-Iranian Shia, sometimes allying themselves with Al Quaida.
    (2) Al Quaida is attemting to destroy Iraq as a State by stirring up sectarian violence and making sure living conditions (fuel supplies and electricity) are not supplied to the population (i.e. sabotage).
    (3) Iran is sending in secret service to bog the U.S. down in war so they have more time to acquire the bomb and also unite the Shia in Iraq to Iran.
    (4) Many other groups are fighting one another with no real motive apart from tribal revenge seeing as Iraq is a tribal nation with a deep-rooted sense of "family revenge".
    "I say the US should pull out and watch them create another horrible place for themselves."
    It's a catch 22. If the U.S. pulls out, Iraq will be handed over either to Iran or to Al Quaida. It;s truly a nightmare scenario.




     
  18. Carrera

    Carrera New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree there's a big problem in the Middle East but this is probably connected to injustices and poverty, especially within Iraq. The sanctions imposed on Iraq for many years radicalised the Iraqis and also radicalised certain fundamentalist groups outside of Iraq (in my own opinion).
    There is a simple law of physics: Where there is oppression and injustice, there is likewise an equally destructive, radical counter-reaction.
    The U.S. is now reaping the harvest of the discord they sowed and the seeds of hatred they planted in the name of democracy and freedom. I refer to such events as Clinton bombing Iraq to distract attention away from his personal troubles at home (Monica Lewinsky e.t.c.), the denial of medicine to Iraqis in Baghdad hospitals (with the resultant deaths through disease and malnutrition).
    Of course, the average American never really paid much attention to suffering in Baghdad hospitals or the fact the average Iraqi had only 5 dollars a month to live when sanctions came into effect and Saddam also did his bit to rub vinegar in the wound. That is, the average American didn't really understand what was being carried out in their name.
    Little wonder, then, that there was widespread looting within Iraq immediately after the invasion. The poor buggers had been denied the most basic commodities for so long they were bound to run riot soon as law and order broke down.
    What we now have is major instability in this region which is bound to affect Europe, Israel and the U.S.A. for quite some time if the Middle East plunges into war.
    Really, I haven't a clue as to how any politician could restore stability to this region but what the Arabs need is employment, hope and security before any democracy can stand a chance to take root.


     
  19. Carrera

    Carrera New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, you can also see examples of this in New Orleans. There was a total breakdown of law and order with gangs running around and mayhem.

     
  20. Carrera

    Carrera New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    Phew, now I know I'm not the only one to draw this comparison. Google reveals scores of writers who discovered the same as myself. Now it turns out there are even Bush/Nero car-bumper stickers you can buy. Here are some other views:

    "Seeing Bush playing guitar while New Orleans was sinking reminded me and others of Nero fiddling (well ok, playing his lyre) while Rome burned. The comparison can be extended by the fact that Nero was reportedly vacationing in his native Anzio when the fire started, just as Bush was vacationing on his Texas ranch.
    The comparison ends there though, because Nero rushed to return to Rome and played his lyre while fully aware of the devastation happening in front of him. Bush was playing his guitar many miles away at a fundraising party, apparently completely oblivious to the devastation occuring in the neighbouring state, and didn’t cut short his vacation until two days later.
    Nero is also said to have opened his palaces to provide shelter for the homeless and arranged for food supplies to be delivered in order to prevent starvation among the survivors. Bush and his administration were denying aid from many sources and struggling to offer much of their own.
    Nero was finally deposed. Let’s hope that’s another comparison we can make."

    by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
    "The reactions expressed by the President, and by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, to the situations in Afghanistan, the Middle East, and the still-accelerating collapse of the present world monetary-financial system, depict a nation whose government's head is not in the real universe; a nation obsessed with the willful lies being used to foster the delusion that a current economic recovery is in progress. Compare the events of the burning of Rome under Nero to the developments of Sept. 11 and following, to date. An illusion-ridden reign marches triumphantly, like a parade of the living dead, setting its pace to the drum-beat of its own increasingly hysterical, desperate delusions. The President screams, ritually, like the Queen in Alice's dream, "Off with their heads!" So, the cards will fall. The drumbeats from Afghanistan and the Middle East foretell the tragic doom of the U.S. economic and strategic policies of the current moment.
    It is their doom, but also, probably, the doom of all of us as well, as the hecatomb of Nero's rage cut open the veins and hacked off the heads of so many of the ruling elite, and others, of Rome in that time.
    The point of my aside to you here, is to prompt you to compare the evident mental state of the Bush Administration with that of Rome under Nero. As I have warned you above, do not attempt an exact match between Nero's and Bush's administrations. Rather, get the flavor of the ironic similarities, the common characteristics of what are otherwise two quite different specific circumstances. The key to sorting out the similarities and differences, is your recognition that the U.S. policy under the Bush Administration today, is predominantly a strategic orientation toward establishing a universal-fascist form of English-speaking world-empire, which is an attempted parody of the ancient empire of pagan Rome."
     
Loading...
Loading...