David, perhaps you should read the material which you insisted everybody else read.

Some good parallels, we had a hate filled rabbel rouser calling for the destruction of Carthage. We have the Carthagens who are good at trade and in competition with Rome. We had Carthage take what was a sensible action to defend itself against the hostile actions of a third party. Those actions posed no direct threat to Rome but provided a convenient excuse for Cato to incite violence against Carthage.

Cato used the flimsiest pretexts to carry out his campaign of hate against his competition. He went around inciting violence and hatred at every opportunity.

I see why you identify so closely with him.

R0bert

Hi Rob...
I disagree that Cato was 'hate filled'...he might have been, but I don't see that as his prime motivation. He was motivated by a knowledge of both human nature and history.

*flimsiest Pretexts* ? oooooh my.. errr tap tap.. helloooo 2 Punic wars, whereby Rome could have been eternally destroyed. The only reason it wasnt is because Hanibal held back from a final attack. He may or may not have won, but given his track record..I think he would have done it.

Cato was very 'neocon' in his desire to see the danger spots of the 'World' as it was then, under Roman control and dominance. He knew from bitter experience what might happen if it were otherwise.

One of the points I'm seeking to highlight in this thread, is the rather 'pragmatic' and self seeking nature of earthly politics, no matter how it's dressed up as 'national interest' and self defense.

My hope then is, that the likes of Wobbles Passy, Marilyn Shepherd, Bronwyn, Vanilla,Fractelle, Ginx and Keith, will recognize that THAT is what drives people and there is really no 'good' guy..its only the 'winning' bloke that ultimately counts. (not that I'm advocating this approach, I'm simply demonstrating how it works...using history as the example.) Pericles is one of the few who deep down recognizes this, but if "I" am the one speaking about it (*smile*) he cannot resist taking a shot at me and coming up with the standard "You are spreading hate/you are part of the problem" mantra.

How people can naively believe that the UN does anything other than 'mask' these realities for a gullible chunk of humanity continues to fascinate and amaze me.

PS.. where are the "Generals" among us ? Battle of Cannae? c'mon..its not a trick question.

BUGSY... learn from the past to understand the present. History is ALways relevant to the issues of the day mate. We have the continual uninformed and naive chirping and muttering from the false political prophets claiming that 'their way' will solve all our problems.. UTTER ROT and you know it. The REASON neither Left nor Right, Green Red or brindle will solve our problems is... the same problem Rome faced.
Or as Jim Carey in Liar liar said as he exited the now very smelly lift "It was MEEEEEE" :)

Last post refers to the silliness of 'blaming' this or that force for out ills, and I 'name and shame' a few of our left leaning posters :)

TRTL I'll clarify. I have an absolute goal of utterly destroying secularism as an idea on which to base society. I know it will not be successful, but the bigger objective of destroying 'secularism' is to remove it as something to have 'faith' in for life.
But my 'weapons' are simply argument, reason history and logic. There will be not 'Christian Gulag' for secularists :)
Paul argued daily at the hall of Tyrannus.

<<But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus.>>
Acts 19:9

TRTL..the alternative is true Christian community. Not for government, but for personal and social renewal. A government which emerges from that, will hopefully reflect also the values of the Lord. Sadly, due to the many 'Cathages' in this world, and the competitive nature of people, and greed, it's better for the government to be secular so that people are not put off from Salvation by repressive Christian governments.

Foxy..that extra information is welcome.

NOW.... how would 'you' fight the battle of Cannae as a Roman? :) (thats addressed to all)

Gee, thanks for dragging me into this thread but I feel that, when it comes down to it, people have ALWAYS been driven more by self-interest than some higher principle.

They grasp onto things that support their beliefs and prejudices, whether they are political parties or mythical deities. People tend to take a position and work backwards from there to justify it.

Unlike some, I have no vested (self)-interest in achieving eternal life by promoting one belief by simply attacking another. My arguments are based on the individual premise of right or wrong.

I think you’ll find my approach has always been to demonstrate that BOTH sides are usually at fault, which you may have mistaken for a defence of the indefensible. I think its important to stray from the “script” from time-to-time. That's the degree of my own self-interest, to challenge prejudices.

As for the neo-cons and other vested interests, I think this sums it up well for me –

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket

http://www.horstwisdom.com/wiki/index.php5?title=War_is_a_Racket

If you want to use ancient Roman analogies, how about this one for some perspective?

http://spiritofmaat.com/archive/may2/prns/faktrror.htm

The UN is just a façade for those who really call the shots. If you believe the UN somehow runs the world, I think you’re sadly mistaken. It’s a lot like the IOC – an organisation based on self-interest and under the control of powerful interests.

The UN (particularly the Security Council) is obviously imperfect but what is there to replace it? Until something better comes along, what alternative do we really have? The Law of the Jungle?

Dear David,

The answer to your question, "How would we win the battle of Cannae?"
lies in these two websites:

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/cannae.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae

Have fun!

WOBBLES... nice to see we are on the same page for a change :)

You also feel into my "TRAP" hehe.. aarr..which trap he says? the one which showed me you read my posts *wink*

On the UN.. mate..I'm way ahead of you there.. straining at the bit, yelling it loud and clear.

It gives me no joy to condemn certain idealogical dangers as I see them, but I do see some as real dangers rather than the type Crassus invented for his own benefit. I liked that article, read it, and it just confirms my long held belief that things are indeed that way at the highest levels of power, whether democratic or otherwise.

FOXY.. hey :) err.. you just gave me links to descriptions of the battle.. not a 'strategy' which might have won it for the Romans.

In the same way that Hanibal made good use of his resources, even though numerically inferior (except his cavalry) the Romans COULD (if Varro had at least half a brain in his head) have... better deployed their resources.

My approach is to use the same levels of deception and faking, attack and blocking that are used in physical combat. Of course the principles apply to any combative sport. One thing is certain, approaching say a boxing bout with the same rashness as Varro, will result in a very severe 'whacking' :)

In fact.. I was sparring with a friend the other night, and as I did one move, I moved my other hand around to protect my face which otherwise was exposed.... but.. got whacked.. and whacked.. until I realized that I wasn't holding my protective hand far ENUF around.. aah..then I was ok. So, for those who would love to give me a 'whack' sometimes :) don't worry.. already done.