They say history has a tendency to repeat itself, what do you think?

Question

I am merely curious to see what you think. Are we doomed to repeat history. For one do you think a war could envelop in our country like it did back then. Second do you think the situation in the middle east will only get worse. Back then the middle east was the site of a war. Now war has enveloped the middle east again. Like I said are we doomed to repeat history again and again?

Answer 1

History tends to repeat itself for the simple reason that those who do not learn from their mistakes or those from the past are condemned to repeat them.
You see it when it came to cycles of the rise and fall of the following empires, Roman, Ottoman, British.

Answer 2

History somewhat repeats itself.
People can really only make a certain number of decisions. If people look at the decisions others made in the past, they can predict what will happen.
For example, the people of Iraq have never had a history of freedom. Ever since Babylon, the Iraqis have been in some sort of Theocracy, except the Roman timeperiod, when they were under the boot of an imperial power. Church and state are one and the same there, and they resent us trying to impose our values upon them. Wouldn't you feel the same way?
When the Romans (who had religious freedom) left Mesopotamia, the people first were under the theocracy of the Persians, and then the Arabs, the Turks, and finally, themselves. That is all they know, so why should they change now?
From this, we can ascertain that within 10 years after the US leaves, there will be a despotic theocracy.

Answer 3

This is an excellent question. History does tend to repeat itself. Not so much as a scientific forumula, but we need to look at the past as a guide to the present.

I would definetly say someone familiar with Vietnam, would not have so rashly moved into Iraq. At least at the time of Vietnam we were fighting Communism, and do not know what Bush is trying to fight. Vietnam showed the Congress should have an active role in war; in fact under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution the legislative branch should be a co-partner in war. This was reinforced by "The War Powers Act." I believe President Bush is a very ignorant man, who disregarded the lessons of Vietnam--the war he ducked combat duty in.

There are other areas where history can be useful, and not all negatively. It took time to convince me, but the tax cuts of Presidents Johnson, Reagan, and even Bush, have convinced me that they are a good way to stimulate the economy. History shows in Great Britain, the U.S., and other nations that you cannot tax your way into prosperity. It is not a lack of concern for the poor, but it is just a fact that taxes do not generally promote economic growth.

Even in more recent times deficits were thought to be horrible. But the lessons of history do not show this. We had great prosperity under Reagan, the fairly large deficits notwithstanding. During the Great Depression 1933 FDR had deficit spending. This primed the pump and the economy improved significantly. But then in 1937 he raised taxes, cut deficits, and we had "The Roosevelt Recession," in which the economy again collapsed.

These are just some main examples that came to my mind, but I will go back to the Middle East. Bush has completely ignored the lessons of history. Most of our presidents have seen the area as a potential powder keg to move carefully in.
Other presidents have recognized the importance of diplomacy. This would include a number of presidents, Eisenhower negotiating with a strong Egyptian nationalist Nassar, and opposing Great Britain, France, and Israel seizing the Suez Canal from Egypt. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson took no aggressive action, to my knowledge, in the Middle East. President Nixon acted carefully in the Middle East, only putting our troops on alert when the Soviet Union acted as if it would interfere in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Nixon also held peaceful negotiations and visits to Egypt. Jimmy Carter deserves much credit for the Camp David peace, which help ease tensions between previous ancient enemies of Egypt and Israel.

Therefore, until W. I think it was clear that the Middle East was an area to tread carefullly. Much wiser presidents have recognized there culture is different than ours, and this requires patience and understanding.

President Bush is an ignortant bloodthirsty cowboy. I do not believe any sensible politician would follow his example--except as what not to do. If the Republicans do not want to lose in 2008, they better distance themselves from him. On this basis McCain and Guiliani have no chance to win. Rep. Ron Paul, who has, may just pick up momentum, and could beat Obama or Hillary.

Answer 4

Basically, yes.
Of course, the Middle East has been embroiled in warfare ever since the people there learned to "write" and keep records.
There is tremendous pressure on the human race: from what I have read, the world can support about 1 billion people without pesticides, herbicides and fertilyzers. These things are causing all kinds of problems in human genetics and current health conditions.
The only accepted way of reducing the human population is warfare.

Answer 5

"History doesn't really repeat itself, but it has a nasty habit of rhyming." - Mark Twain

An example:

In the final centuries of the Roman Empire, the Emperors outsourced defence by hiring some of their German neighbors to fight their wars with them and for them. Some of these Germans later used what they had learned about warfare to follow their own interests, including attacking the Romans at times. This lead to the fall of the Empire in the west.

In the 1980's, the US govt outsourced part of the cold war by training some Arabs in terrorism tactics to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Some of those Arabs, such as bin Laden, later used what they had learned about warfare to follow their own interests, including attacking the US on 9/11. Sound familiar?

Now we are outsourcing the search for bin Laden to the gove of Pakistan, which is much more interested in its own preservation than in capturing bin Laden.

Will we never learn?

Answer 6

I think that it can repeat itself, but in different ways. Of course, we are always improving technology, so the wars and issues are different. But wars we still have, and sometimes with the same people.

Yes, I think that the situation in the middle east will only get worse. They want to eliminate the USA, and there is no compromise or settlement for that. They want to kill us, period, end of story, so we have to fight back or die.

Answer 7

properly, you ought to write approximately your older brother hating this project so background is repeating itself, yet you will probable get a extra suitable grade in case you seem on the kind of circumstances the comparable human beings have been at conflict with one yet another, at the same time with the two religions in eire or the Germans and the French. in case you opt for something much less properly customary, seem at what got here approximately interior the Balkans down however the years ending maximum those days interior the Bosnian-Serbian slaughter and the breaking apart of Czechoslovakia the place human beings do no longer even agree on what to call previous slaughters.

Answer 8

My answer to your question would be a resoundingly loud YES!

It is a simple matter of logic and coffee-break-quick philosophy. As one Nobel Prize recipient wrote, "The defects of society may be traced to the defects of individuals." Society, being made up of individuals, and being led by individuals, is thus inevitably, constantly making mistakes, doomed to repeat those mistakes in the future.

It is only human to err. At least twice, mind you.

Answer 9

Ana, no the middle east do not want to kill the US. that is silly of you to think that. It is the middle east who is defending themselves and not the other way round.

Answer 10

Absolutely! Life is a cricle and everything comes back around in time...