will the senate will finnaly end the war in irak?
and get rid of george bush?
2007-02-16 06:55:55 · 8 answers · asked by Nanno D 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Um... no excuse me, Caesar was for the people. He won wars, and may I remind you that he led the Romans into the Pax Romana? Yes, it was followed by his successor, Augustus. But Caesar started the transistion. You really think that there was peace and devotion in the Congress of Rome? Well if so, you're wrong. Arguements similar to that of Parliment went on, and nothing ever got done. The people of Rome were everyone in that huge Empire. And what did Caesar do? A hell of a good job to bring economical developement, along with population and land prosperity. What has Bush done for us? Economical decline, military decline, and even lost wars for this country (hint: Iraq, Iran). Caesar never lost. He may have lost men in Gaul, but did he really lose, or did he win over the large French landmass and call it Roman Empire? He did so.
Bush has no experience what so ever in the military. HE NEVER WENT TO WAR, AND HE WAS ON THE RESERVES. For you unknowledgable fools out there, the reserves is not the army, and you are only called for service if they need you. But you can also say you're attending school (something which Bush used as an excuse). It's like the French (don't think I'm against the French) in World War II. They were defeated by the Germans, the Americans renowned them as Allies, and when the British, Americans, and Russians won the war, the French also said they helped win. Of course, they were part of the war but didn't do anything. That's alot like Bush. He likes to acknowledge his achievements that he hasn't even achieved.
Now, Caesar on the other hand was a war prodigy. He was also an economical and government run man. Defeating Hannibal in the Alps is probably one of the greater achievements he did.
If it was Bush 2050 years ago, and he was being attacked by Hannibal and his army, Bush would say "ought oh" and send his troops down to Sicily to go to North Africa, when the war was in the Alps. So he would be overthrown without an army, and he wouldn't even fight in the war.
Caesar theory to overthrow Gaul was ingeniused. Creating a wall around the army of Gaul people and forcing them to that wall so the only thing between them is your army and that wall is practically smart. Bush would have done the following: send 5000 foot soldiers and fight them. If they die, send another 5000 and keep doing this till you win. Sadly though that won't work cause your 5000 men will keep dieing until your left with a big fat 0.
So please don't even think about comparing the two.
Caesar is much more of a prodigy then Bush will EVER be.
2007-02-16 07:33:44 · answer #1 · answered by alco19357 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I can't believe how revered Julius Caesar still is, 2000 years after his death. It mildly disturbs me. Great, he was for the people; great, he was a master strategist and quite intelligent. That counts for less than nothing when you look at what he did with it all. Rights constantly violated, more government control over every aspect of a citizen's life... Caesar was not so much for the people as he was for the state. Only when the two goals coincided was he in any way "for" the people. Before making wild accusations of a second brutal dictator in charge of a country, try finding out what the first one really did and stood for. Caesar wasn't this great, wonderful person, he was terrible. Get away from the textbooks and read some actual fact for once.
2007-02-16 07:10:50 · answer #2 · answered by Richard S 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Gaius Julius Caesar was a political genius and a master strategist. Don't compare him to a chimp in a suit.
Plus Caesar ended the monopoly of power held by the corrupt senate and set up a system which (at least for a time) worked better. Even those who were opposed to Caesar treated him as a man deserving of great respect (Cicero for example).
Also the Senate provided Caesar with legions to attack Gaul and rewarded him well for the conquests he made.
The US Senate may end the war in Iraq and end the career of Bush but these events do not resemble the life and deeds of Gaius Julius Caesar any more than Bush's deeds repeat those of Leonardo Da Vinci.
2007-02-16 07:03:20 · answer #3 · answered by monkeymanelvis 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Dat Julus Caesar a Bat dude.
2007-02-16 06:58:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because politicians refuse to study and take note of history and man`s mistakes
2016-05-24 07:21:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush Julius.... ya know... I've tried the orange and strawberry... I would be willing to try that one too.
2007-02-16 07:21:09 · answer #6 · answered by Scott M 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
will dems finally shut up?
2007-02-16 07:04:54 · answer #7 · answered by Broken Twig 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Please don't compare Bush to Julius Cesear, Cesear was for the people.
2007-02-16 07:00:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋