GAIUS JULIUS CESAR & IRAQ

[Gość: zbig]

When I was turning around the world in Internet to save as much
as possible Iraqi children and women, my wife have been seeing such
a product of US of 2002 which had been titled 'Julius Cesar'.
This was the first part of it.
Its ended when Galls besieged by Romes decided to offer
their children and women as slaves to Romes to not die of famine.
It sounded wild to me, but then my wife associated that momentarilly
with Iraqis children and women present situation.
And she find the solution for them also. Here I shortly report this
for you, because whole the matter seems to be very urgent.
So, I propone all other threads aside for a moment.
My wife suggested it would be possible to reckon SH to release
all Iraqi women and children to US zone and after that to some suitable camps
far away of war theatre. Shhhh...Shhhhh... it is not so stupid idea at all !
Let us consider it for a moment or two, before you turn your imagination to
something more brilliant, as some nice girl or boy on MTV or around you...

What are args for:
1) We can save the lives of THOUSANDS children and women.
2) We obtain an easy way to guarantee that our humanitary aid will be on 100%
properly addressed.
3) The human shields may obtain appropriate target to shield, and
simultaneously a sensible job with distributing the food and medicines in
these camps.
4) The world opinion and UN SC will have no args against the war any more
(most are connected with these children and women)
5) The big boyz on both sides will have free field to try their brand-new
toyz with AMP (all the military power) on both sides.

What are args against:
1) Nothing at all ...

Oh, perhaps one slight problem. The 300.000 army may want to treat these
women as Romes did. (And we still do not know how it will be shown in the
next part of the 'Julius Cesar'.)
But personally I do not think Iraqi men would have had anything against,
because anyway there will be great demand in new-born Iraqis after the war, I
am afraid. And... most of them will have anything against on this very simple
basis also that they will have their own sexual-matters with houris in their
Muslim paradise.
See also: www.pantheon.org/articles/h/houris.html
I am dead-tired after all that mess with Petition to organise all the things
around, but if you would like to talk with anybody influencial enough, it
would be possible to achieve this solution yet before 13th or at the worst
17th March, probably, I hope so at least.

[Gość: chickenShorts]

Well, dear Zbig, I have two points regarding your post:

#1 - work 'arder on yer Inglese;

#2 - don't (women can be stupid, you know)
publicise stupidity of your OWN wife!

'...apart from the fact that the Romans were fighting not only barbarian
tribes but established, civilized societies such as the Jewish communities
located throughout what we now call the Middle East, Roman leaders had already
had ample time and experience to learn the speciousness of this reasoning. In
the first place, punitive and destructive war against the nonwarrior members of
any group that was not Roman (“barbarian” tribe or no) only led to the creation
of generations of anti-Roman sentiment within that group. Then, too, Rome was
rarely at war with entire tribes so much as with those charismatic leaders that
occasionally surfaced to lead their peoples in rebellion—peoples who, again,
had often been made restive by Roman crulety.

In other words, we can detect in the example of Rome the most essential truth
about warfare against civilians: that when waged without provocation it usually
brings on retaliation in kind, and when turned to for retaliatory purposes it
only perpetuates a cycle of revenge and outrage that can go on for generations.
Therefore it should be avoided in both its forms—initial and reactive—for,
again, those nations and peoples who indulge in warfare against civilians to
the greatest extent will ultimately see their people and their interests suffer
to a similar degree.'

...the whole article:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/thelessonsofterror.htm

[chickenshorts]

Civilians: Why It Has Always Failed and Why It Will Fail Again
By Caleb Carr
Random House. 272 pp. $19.95
Monday, February 25, 2002

A CATASTROPHE, NOT A CURE

Long before the deliberate military targeting of civilians as a method of
affecting the political behavior of nations and leaders came to be called
terrorism, the tactic had a host of other names. From the time of the Roman
republic to the late eighteenth century, for example, the phrase that was most
often used was destructive war. The Romans themselves often used the phrase
punitive war, although strictly speaking punitive expeditions and raids were
only a part of destructive war. For while many Roman military campaigns were
indeed undertaken as punishment for treachery or rebellion, other destructive
actions sprang out of the simple desire to impress newly conquered peoples with
the fearsome might of Rome, and thereby (or so it was hoped) undercut any
support for indigenous leaders. In addition, there was a pressing need to allow
the famous Roman legions, who were infamously underpaid, to plunder and rape as
a reward for their almost inhuman steadiness in the heat of battle. The example
of Rome incorporates nearly every possible permutation of warfare against
civilians. In this as in so many things, antiquity’s greatest state provided a
remarkably complete set of precedents for many later Western republics and
empires.

The Romans knew only one way to fight—with relentless yet disciplined ferocity—
but they eventually devised several ways to deal with the peace that ensued.
The first and most successful was inclusive in nature: the peoples of conquered
provinces could, if they agreed to abide by Roman authority and law, aspire to
become citizens of the republic (and later the empire). Indeed, some new
subjects, particularly merchants and other civic leaders, could achieve the
status quite quickly. Even slaves could aspire to citizenship, for early on the
Romans had devised a remarkable system of manumission, providing multiple
avenues by which slaves could escape the hopelessness of unending bondage (and
the tendency toward rebellion that hopelessness often breeds) by attempting to
earn, buy, or be granted first freedom and then actual citizenship. Freedmen
played an important part in Roman history (more than one emperor was saved by a
loyal freedman); and on the whole, these complementary policies—granting
citizenship to conquered peoples and offering slaves the hope of manumission—
may safely be called the central foundation on which the near millennium of
Roman hegemony rested.

But like so many empires and great powers that followed them, the Romans also
engaged in more avaricious, less benevolent policies that many times came close
to undoing all the security and stability built up by their genius. First among
these was a pronounced taste for revenge against enemies who were perceived as
intractable or treacherous—the most famous example of such mortal enemies being
the Carthaginian empire of the late third century b.c. and its leader,
Hannibal. The long years of struggle against Hannibal—whose raids and campaigns
throughout Italy bred both bloodthirsty hatred and a powerful sense of
vulnerability in his opponents—eventually led the Romans, when they finally did
occupy Carthage more than fifty years later, to not only sack but utterly
destroy the city. And although they soon built their own urban center atop the
ruins, the experience gave apparent validation to an already unfortunate, even
fatal, tendency in both the Roman military and its masters in the Senate.

The razing of Carthage had been that rarest of things in a nation’s experience:
the utter eradication not only of the enemy’s home but of many if not most of
his people as well: men,women, children, even the elderly. It was the epitome
of destructive war, and the Romans not only revered the memory of it but
attempted at various times to repeat it. In so doing, they planted at least a
few of the seeds of their own eventual downfall: for, along with being rare,
the destruction of Carthage would prove beyond replication. Yet the Roman taste
for vicious destructive war that the Carthaginian experience sharpened grew
stronger with each new generation, until it became powerful enough to threaten
the stability that the empire’s brilliant system of citizenship and manumission
had made seem so unshakable.

Throughout the remainder of its history, Rome was dominated by the tension
between these two imperatives: on the one hand, the enlightened desire to be an
inclusive empire built not on destructive war but on forceful economic and
political expansion; and on the other, the violent compulsion—bred in the army
but fed by romantic notions of war popular among all Roman citizens—to be a
chauvinistic, plundering state that simply took whatever it wanted from whoever
had it. Rome’s metamorphosis into an empire just before the birth of Christ
tilted the scales alarmingly but inevitably in favor of the second of these two
conceptions, despite the efforts of several perspicacious emperors to prevent
such a shift. For, with the eclipse of the Senate as the critical arm of
government, the numerous political factions vying for control of the state and
balancing each other’s ambitions gave way to a very limited number of imperial
factions; and when power was being contested by just a few people who were
neither elected nor answerable to the citizenry, the army became the single
most important force in the maintenance of power. And it was the army that had
always looked to destructive war, first, as a means with which to set grim
examples for politically rebellious subjects, second, to avenge any defeats and
betrayals it sustained, and lastly, as a way to augment the comparatively
meager pay that soldiers received and sate their appetites during campaigning.

It is not surprising, then, that Rome’s imperial centuries were characterized
not only by more severe versions of the types of warfare against civilians that
had been a hallmark of military activity during the republic, but by new and
astoundingly savage—as well as often gratuitous—destructive tactics. It has, of
course, been argued (not least by the Romans themselves) that the empire was
fighting barbarian tribes, and that its forces needed to adopt the tactics of
their enemies if they hoped to succeed. (Similar arguments have often been
employed by various individuals and groups during the contemporary war against
terrorism.) But quite apart from the fact that the Romans were fighting not
only barbarian tribes but established, civilized societies such as the Jewish
communities located throughout what we now call the Middle East, Roman leaders
had already had ample time and experience to learn the speciousness of this
reasoning. In the first place, punitive and destructive war against the
nonwarrior members of any group that was not Roman (“barbarian” tribe or no)
only led to the creation of generations of anti-Roman sentiment within that
group. Then, too, Rome was rarely at war with entire tribes so much as with
those charismatic leaders that occasionally surfaced to lead their peoples in
rebellion—peoples who, again, had often been made restive by Roman crulety.

In other words, we can detect in the example of Rome the most essential truth
about warfare against civilians: that when waged without provocation it usually
brings on retaliation in kind, and when turned to for retaliatory purposes it
only perpetuates a cycle of revenge and outrage that can go on for generations.
Therefore it should be avoided in both its forms—initial and reactive—fo

[chickenshorts]

it should be avoided in both its forms—initial and reactive—for, again, those
nations and peoples who indulge in warfare against civilians to the greatest
extent will ultimately see their people and their interests suffer to a similar
degree. Rome’s greatest conquests were not achieved because of the depredations
that occurred either to keep troublesome subjects obedient or after battles and
sieges had been won; they were achieved despite those depredations and because
the promise of inclusion in the society and infrastructure of Rome was too
attractive for most people to refuse. The cruelties inflicted by the Roman army
achieved only the creation and perpetuation of underlying bitterness, which
could simmer and finally boil over into open support for rebellious leaders who
urged a return to more traditional tribal societies."

© 2002 Caleb Carr


Zbig! make sure your wife read it! Ask questions, if necessary...beat her up!

[Gość: zbig]

I would like to work 'arder on minese Inglese, so
would you be sokinez and explain me what
the following term exactle meanese?
Actualy, what "Roman crulety" is?

BTW, my dear chickenotsolongs, I understand,
your Inglese is so perfect one you can only
prepare 'cited' posts in this language?

So i have an Internet address which seems to be created especially for you:

www1.gazeta.pl/forum/794674,30353,794652.html?f=517&w=4879354&a=4879379
We have international week of brain this very week, also.
Because, most likely, your own brain is overgrown with amyloids,
you shall seriously wonder a little if not make use of the address above.

And the last but not least, my poor chickenretardedbeings,
if necessary... bite your ass
with your teeth all the way down !

Send the post to UN Security Council members

[Gość: zbig]

> Jednym slowem Twoj pomysl teoretycznie jest bardzo dobry, lecz praktycznie -
utopijny.

Nie, jeśli udałoby się do tego przekonac ONZ.
A jesli jest to utopia, to tylko dlatego, że nic już tak naprawdę nie potrafi
poruszyc sumien nawet w 9? % katolickiego narodu w stopniu wymagajacym jakiegos
powazniejszego zaangazowanie sie,
o czym niech świadczy fakt, że nie można do niego przekonac nawet pojedynczych
osób, ktrórych nic lub prawie nic (poza propagowaniem samego pomysłu i drobną
ściepką na ten cel, gdyby już przyszło co do czego) by to nie kosztowało.
Najprościej jest wziąć udział w jednej lub paru manifestacjach na 'nie',
podpisać parę petycji, a potem zasiąść z wypiekami słusznej złości (i nie
tylko) przed relacjami na żywo, z których zyje CNN i nie tylko.

Zresztą nikt nie wymagam od prywatnych ludzi organizacji całej takiej akcji.
To byłaby rzeczywiście utopia. Wystarczyłoby być może napisać kilka słów i
wyekspediować post do ONZ
[e-mail]
Jesli zrobią to tysiące, to moze sam pomysl sie tam przebije.
Moj pojedynczy post utonie po prostu w zwykłej wrzawie antywojennej, która ten
adres jest zalany.
Mozna też go wysłać na dowolny lub każdy adres z listy na stronie

manyworlds.w.interia.pl/mw/forum/iraq/peacepost.htm
A oto propozycja takiego prostego postu w tej sprawie:

========================

To: All Members of the United Nations Security Council

To: Mr. Kofi A. Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations

Dear Sirs,

Concern: Please consider the possibility of evacuation women and children from
Iraq for the period of the war.

It is possible still to reckon Saddam Hussajn to release all the Iraqi women
and children to US zone in the North-Iraq and after that to some suitable camps
far away of the war theatre, with a suitable resolution of UN supported by the
power of 300,000 armies on its borders

The arguments for:
1) We can save the lives of THOUSANDS children and women.
2) We obtain an easy way to guarantee that our humanitary aid will be on 100%
properly addressed.

And what are the very true arguments against?
1) Nothing at all ...

Most of the people would spend the first period of the war-time in the camps
near the Iraq borders and a possibly great number would go for a 4-
week 'holidays' in organised groups everywhere in the world where it would
occur to be possible collect enough money to take them in.
If any particular UN member would finance the 4-week stay for ca.50,000-100,000
persons in average, it would cover 200x100,000=20,000,000 and the number
exceeds the total 18 milion of Iraqi women and children.

Yours faithfully,


========================
[podpis imienny ( w miare mozliwości z adresem)
to ważne, żeby uniknąć mozliwych zarzutów,
a takze dla podkreslenia wlasnej determinacji
i stopnia osobistego zangazowania sie ]
========================

Ile Lechistan musi ucierpiec..

[Gość: m]

w kalifacie Wuja Sama...
..for us to comprehend this?

Yes, an excellent idea, and it will have Saddam jumping with joy to see an army
of Iraqi human shields transported directly to the "Axis of Evil" thus
preventing any defensive action within or outside their own country.