Bush Speech

[Seeker]

"The Republic had no clear foreign policy or strategy."

From 200-179 BC, the crucial period of expansion in my opinion, as articulated by T. Quinctius Flamininus and M. Q. Flamininus, and Marcus Porcius Cato, and the various Scipios. They talk about it repeatedly in various speeches in the Senate.

Particularly, T.Q. Flams speech about why the Republic should attack Phillip NOW, when he hasn't made any attacks on them and can't really threaten them (Phil was attacking tiny old Athens in an attempt to restore Macedonian despotic hegemony over Greece).

"Recall the past war with Hannibal, and ask yourselves: Is it better that we should wait until we must fight Phillip here in Italy?" (he goes on at length to discuss why this is bad, because of rebellious 'allies' in Italy and outright Greek sympathizers in Sicily). (he then goes on to list Philips atrocities and broken treaties, how he won't be content with Greece alone, very reminiscent of Bush talking about Saddam) (then he says that it is better that they defeat Phil now, and let the enemy do the suffering. This is later applied to Alexander III.)

The other Flaminuses, the Scipios, and Cato, and all the other Censors and Consuls supported this policy in word and deed during the crucial period. This saw Spain, Liguria, Greece, Thracia, Asia Minor, etc fall to Rome and took the wind out of Alexanders successors.

I claim that this period, when Rome gradually went to defending foreign Allies to embarking on permanent foreign conquests in order to eliminate threats, was the real beginning of imperialism.

The American parallel depends on how they decide to hold down the regions that threaten them, in this modern age I credit them with more subtlety than military occupation, but I'm sure they will put in place an American puppet regime backed by overwhelming firepower which will amount to the same thing. Or maybe everything will be fine and the Iraqis will joyfully be praising Bush as a liberator 10 years from now....yeah, right...

[Roland]

"From 200-179 BC"

Well the Republic lasted from around 500 BC into much of the first century BC. Policy varied widely, from the destruction of Carthage over the Yogurtha farce and being caught pants down by Mithridates to Caesar's conquest of Gaul (which was not very well recieved by many in the Senate).

[SpencerH]

Bushs speech had some good points, but I dont think he made it clear enough why we must deal with the Iranians now. It needed a "you can pay me now or you can pay me later, and if later it'll cost more" type of simplicity.

[Amadan]

Originally posted by Fez


But are his general's willing?

Considering the fact the he has killed off all of those that wouldn't be, and that each general has an official assigned to him specifically to watch for any sign of self-thought: Yes, they would be.

[Amadan]

Originally posted by Fez
You people are clueless. I am not going to talk with clueless people like David Floyd. Get a damn clue. You don't know who you are dealing with... this is not a man you would consider a good neighbor... he ****ing kills people.

I might be clueless, but I'm putting faith that generals with actual military experience (unlike Bush), arn't.

From the NY-Times article:
"Much of the senior uniformed military, with the notable exception of some top Air Force and Marine generals, opposes going to war anytime soon, a stance that is provoking frustration among civilian officials in the Pentagon and in the White House. In addition, some suspect that Powell's stance has produced an unusual alliance between the State Department and the uniformed side of the Pentagon, elements of the government that more often seem to oppose each other in foreign policy debates."

There has also been a panel of retired 4-star generals testifying before congress (are they clueless?), and three of them suggested restraint in our actions.

[SpencerH]

Generals are no more infallible about military action than knowledgeable civilians. For example, there were a lot of military experts who believed the task force to retake the Falklands was doomed to failure and that only a blockade was feasible.

[FrostyBoy]

If America does take control of Iraq, they should hand the power over to the UN or to the EU, not America; America will sell coke, mcdonalds and britney spears cd's.

The American govt are arses and they know it.


Why do I foresee hippies returning in the very near future?

[Amadan]

Originally posted by Sn00py
If America does take control of Iraq, they should hand the power over to the UN or to the EU, not America; America will sell coke, mcdonalds and britney spears cd's.

We'd be more likely to withdraw, leaving the country in caos and setting the stage for an even worse regeim.

[Ned]

Roland, as Seeker points out, the Roman Republic after the second Punic war deliberately adopted a policy of "pre-emption." They identified threats and neutralized them with alliances or conquests. Regardless of whether Caesar's conquest of Gaul was not liked by some in the Senate, what he did there is highly consistent with the overall Roman policy in the late Republic.

There was a large amount of debate on this very issue (pre-emption) in Congress yesterday. Larglely the Democrats who supported pre-emption in the case of Iraq did not want to label it as such in order to not set a precedent.

Regardless, what we are doing here, indeed, what the world will be doing here, is pre-emption. This seems to the be the best policy when viewed in the context of Saddam Hussein. The judgment of history also says it was the best policy in the case of Hitler even though it was not then pursued. Whether pre-emption is confined to the likes of Saddam or Hitler remains to be seen.

[Roland]

"the Roman Republic after the second Punic war deliberately adopted a policy of "pre-emption." They identified threats and neutralized them with alliances or conquests."

In some cases they did. In others they didn't. And Caesar acted upon a stretch of his proconsular mandate. And it's a stretch to turn this into a consolidated policy of the Republic. Apart from the cases I mentioned there are several more like the late reaction to piracy, the problem with the Cimbric and Teutonic invasion, etc.

"The judgment of history also says it was the best policy in the case of Hitler even though it was not then pursued."

And containment was the best in case of Stalin.