2007-01-16 14:29:08 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes, but it isn't limited to just Bush. We now have what constitutes an empire. We have military bases on every continent except Antartica. These permanent bases were basically where our armies stopped at the end of WWII. The US has encouraged an imperial agenda since the 1950s. Our military reach continued to persist after the last rationale for having all these bases was negated: The Cold War (which has been over since 1989). Every president since Eisenhower has in one way or another engaged our military or economy to establish and maintain hegemony in what amounts to a 21st century empire.
2007-01-16 14:32:45 · answer #1 · answered by Golgi Body 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Im a little unclear about how youre associating Julius Caesar and Napoleon.
2007-01-16 22:33:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not. Caesar and Napoleon were military geniuses. Obviously Bush is not of that caliber. And even supporters of Bush should be able to admit that.
2007-01-16 22:49:41 · answer #3 · answered by plant a tree 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This is what I am reading into your question:
Your reference to Julius Caesar, because his own Republican Senators are turning against him.
Your reference to Napoleon, the battle of Waterloo.
I believe the answer is "yes."
I also use the analogy of Gen Custer, who went to the Battle of Little Big Born with too few men and clueless to the size of the tribes waiting for him. (Custer's Last Stand)
2007-01-16 22:51:43 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No because both Julius Caesar and Napoleon had countrymen that would fight for them. Half of the American people just want to lay down and watch Oprah until they starve or are blown up.
2007-01-16 22:34:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Bush is more like Caligula or Nero than either of them.
And, BTW, Julius Caesar and Napolean both fought in combat. They didn't just dress up in military costumes and prance around shaking their pom poms like Bush does.
2007-01-16 23:33:19 · answer #6 · answered by The answer guy 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I doubt it... I believe he has a slightly longer stride than Napoleon,and just shorter than Caesar's
2007-01-16 22:33:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think its not fair to pin it all on Bush ... those in power and that have been influential in washington for some years have envisioned the United states to take advantage of its status as the singular world superpower and expand its sphere or control and power ... its imperialism plain and simple ... and i think describing the US as the New Roman Empire is at least a legitemate analogy .
2007-01-16 22:37:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
In what way?
He will be considered great, but I doubt that he will be stabbed to death by the Senate or exiled to a small island.
2007-01-16 22:34:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, because Ceaser and Napoleon were about conquest for an empire, and Bush isn't.
2007-01-16 22:32:22 · answer #10 · answered by ddey65 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋