Peaceful resolution - Iran Nukes

[scipio]

Scipio you a fan of roman history? I am.

Yep. Studied Ancient History at University (among other extraordinarily useful subjects).

Actually I do find it pretty relevant in light of current events, and the parallels between the USA and the Roman Empire.

History is one of my interests, with ancient history being perhaps my favorite. I've found Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War to be very relevant to today's events. To me, Sparta's overextension of itself following its victory in the Peloponnesian War presents a particularly strong parallel to US actions after the Cold War.

-Quinn

That's an interesting view. When looking at the Peleponnesian War as a parralel, I usually associated the USA with Athens. In particular, the US subjugation of somewhat unwilling client states, such as Melos. The main grudge from many of Athen's client states I believe came after the beginning of their rule, when tribute (read: taxation) was increased to maintain the Athenian fleet. Of course there were many other factors, but in the end the combination of oppression against the island subjects, inept rule by both Demagogues and Oligarchs, and mostly critically in my view, their rejection of Alcibiades, really did Athens in.

But I agree with you in terms of Sparta's "imperial overstretch" after the end of the war. Although I wonder if perhaps the replay of that part of history has yet to manifest itself in modern times, unless perhaps it already did in the guise of the Soviet Union, which had a great deal in common with Sparta in terms of the strict regimentation and regulation of society.

[Quinn]

Scipio you a fan of roman history? I am.

Yep. Studied Ancient History at University (among other extraordinarily useful subjects).

Actually I do find it pretty relevant in light of current events, and the parallels between the USA and the Roman Empire.

History is one of my interests, with ancient history being perhaps my favorite. I've found Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War to be very relevant to today's events. To me, Sparta's overextension of itself following its victory in the Peloponnesian War presents a particularly strong parallel to US actions after the Cold War.

-Quinn

That's an interesting view. When looking at the Peleponnesian War as a parralel, I usually associated the USA with Athens. In particular, the US subjugation of somewhat unwilling client states, such as Melos. The main grudge from many of Athen's client states I believe came after the beginning of their rule, when tribute (read: taxation) was increased to maintain the Athenian fleet. Of course there were many other factors, but in the end the combination of oppression against the island subjects, inept rule by both Demagogues and Oligarchs, and mostly critically in my view, their rejection of Alcibiades, really did Athens in.

But I agree with you in terms of Sparta's "imperial overstretch" after the end of the war. Although I wonder if perhaps the replay of that part of history has yet to manifest itself in modern times, unless perhaps it already did in the guise of the Soviet Union, which had a great deal in common with Sparta in terms of the strict regimentation and regulation of society.

Originally, like most people, I, too, associated Athens with the US and Sparta with the USSR. These are easy associations to make given the marked differences in how each respective state approached issues of governance, defense, trade, and its own citizenry. I think these conclusions are perfectly reasonable and valid. That said, if one looks at how success in the Peloponnesian War slowly, but decisively, changed not only Sparta’s foreign policy, but also its very character they will find the inverse to be true in many instances.

Think about it. Until the Peloponnesian War, Sparta had been a fairly insular state content to allow other powers (Athens, Perisa, etc.) their own spheres of influence – so long as they didn’t threaten Spartan dominance of the Peloponnese (Monroe Doctrine, anyone?). This closely mirrors the largely isolationist sentiment that dominated US foreign policy up and until the close of World War II and the onset of the Cold War, both of which produced definitive changes in Washington’s approach to issues occurring outside of the Americas (its own traditional sphere of influence).

By the close of the Peloponnesian War, Sparta had generated for itself an enormous amount of international good will by means of successfully portraying itself as a liberating power determined to stop Athens from subjugating the entirety of the Hellenes. However, once Sparta realized that, with the defeat of Athens, no power within the Hellenes could oppose its will, it became progressively more aggressive and arrogant. In short, the traditionally conservative and cautious Spartans – drunk with power – became sloppy in the allocation of their resources. So far as any historical parallel is concerned, Sparta’s unrivalled position and subsequent conduct at the end of Peloponnesian War closely resembles that of the United States at the end of the Cold War.

The aforementioned comparison becomes even more relevant when we consider that, within a relatively short period of time, Sparta went from being perceived as a liberator and protector to the primary threat by many states within the Hellenes. Slow to notice the changes that were taking place, Sparta’s leadership (Kings, Ephors, etc.) continued to overextend their state’s resources – particularly their manpower – in a series of foreign engagements they could ill afford. Sparta’s downfall can be directly traced to the manner in which it overextended itself attempting to continually perpetuate its hegemonic status at the end of the Peloponnesian War.

-Quinn

[White_Male_Canada]

WARNING: Graphic video after a torture session in an Iranian prison

http://priceofthefreedom.blogspot.co...ure-by_18.html

[plainBob]

lets not forget that the Holocaust wasn't all jews aswell, half of the deaths were jews, the other half was liberals, communists, disabled, mentally ill, and homosexuals.etc. Yet unfortunately holocaust is usually just associated with the jews.

The numbers of those groups killed by the nazis. This comes from wikipedia.

5.1–6.0 million Jews, including 3.0–3.5 million Polish Jews[23]
1.8 –1.9 million non-Jewish Poles (includes all those killed in executions or those that died in prisons, labor, and concentration camps, as well as civilians killed in the 1939 invasion and the 1944 Warsaw Uprising)[24]
500,000–1.2 million Serbs killed by Croat Nazis
200,000–800,000 Roma & Sinti
200,000–300,000 people with disabilities
80,000–200,000 Freemasons [25]
100,000 communists
10,000–25,000 homosexual men
2,000 Jehovah's Witnesses

So yes it was around 6million jews give or take. This comes from German records of the time. The number more than likely higher.

[plainBob]

Heres a link for ya specialk. You more than likely found it already but hey i got a kick out of it.

http://www.nyjtimes.com/cover/03-22-...anItBeTrue.htm

[scipio]

Originally, like most people, I, too, associated Athens with the US and Sparta with the USSR. These are easy associations to make given the marked differences in how each respective state approached issues of governance, defense, trade, and its own citizenry. I think these conclusions are perfectly reasonable and valid. That said, if one looks at how success in the Peloponnesian War slowly, but decisively, changed not only Sparta’s foreign policy, but also its very character they will find the inverse to be true in many instances.

Think about it. Until the Peloponnesian War, Sparta had been a fairly insular state content to allow other powers (Athens, Perisa, etc.) their own spheres of influence – so long as they didn’t threaten Spartan dominance of the Peloponnese (Monroe Doctrine, anyone?). This closely mirrors the largely isolationist sentiment that dominated US foreign policy up and until the close of World War II and the onset of the Cold War, both of which produced definitive changes in Washington’s approach to issues occurring outside of the Americas (its own traditional sphere of influence).

By the close of the Peloponnesian War, Sparta had generated for itself an enormous amount of international good will by means of successfully portraying itself as a liberating power determined to stop Athens from subjugating the entirety of the Hellenes. However, once Sparta realized that, with the defeat of Athens, no power within the Hellenes could oppose its will, it became progressively more aggressive and arrogant. In short, the traditionally conservative and cautious Spartans – drunk with power – became sloppy in the allocation of their resources. So far as any historical parallel is concerned, Sparta’s unrivalled position and subsequent conduct at the end of Peloponnesian War closely resembles that of the United States at the end of the Cold War.

The aforementioned comparison becomes even more relevant when we consider that, within a relatively short period of time, Sparta went from being perceived as a liberator and protector to the primary threat by many states within the Hellenes. Slow to notice the changes that were taking place, Sparta’s leadership (Kings, Ephors, etc.) continued to overextend their state’s resources – particularly their manpower – in a series of foreign engagements they could ill afford. Sparta’s downfall can be directly traced to the manner in which it overextended itself attempting to continually perpetuate its hegemonic status at the end of the Peloponnesian War.

-Quinn

I agree with the parallels you mentioned to a large degree.

Another which is not precise but is worth considering in a strange way is the alliance that Sparta formed in the Eastern Aegean with Persia, in order to defeat Athens.

Essentially all Greek states, and especially those in the Eastern Aegean and Asian Minor, saw the Persians as opressors of all greeks alike. Defense against the Persians was a common cry of greek co-operation for much of the 5th Century BC (e.g. Thermopylae, Platea, etc.)

For Sparta to form an alliance with them, albeit a purely financial one, the height of hypocracy, at least it should have been in the minds of many Greeks.

Now, contrast that with the USA's current occupation of Iraq - "liberating" it, while at the same time having an alliance with Israel, whom most ARab states consider a sworn enemy.

I know the parallel is not exact in every aspect of its relationship, but I think it bears examination to a certain extent. Certainly there are plenty of holes there, but by the same token some tantalizing similarities.

[Ben]

What about American nukes?