Posted on 03/18/2007 9:32:41 AM PDT by freedom44
I am sincerely curious.
What do you think would have beeb an appropriate response to 9/11?
Should it just be ignored because our recent history is not without flaw, in your opinion?
Do you not think it dangerous to allow acts of war such as this to pass without retaliation, even when it is unclear who we should retaliate against?
A quote from Geo Washington is never out of place.I note he said the people of these states...there were no citizens of the United States,except they be the states themselves.People were citizens of the state in which they resided.
What history are you reading? Washington didn't resign.
And so the debate goes.One vote here for Madison.
Yes by the babylonians and it was the Persians who freed them. What is your point?
I'm left wondering whether the movie will include this quote,and whether it's absence from the history channel's recounting is due to the fact that it is a rallying cry for supporters of the second amendment.
...oh for god's sake. It's just a movie based on a historical event.
ping
These two events don't belong on the same page together,unless you're drawing lessons about the difference between a true republican revolution and the nightmare of democracy.
Democracy may well be the best form of government. But what makes America great is not so much democracy as it is its Bill Of Rights.
The Bill of Rights is a superfluous addendum.The whole point of the American revolution seems to be lost to Mr. Kar.America is not a democracy
The author of this article claims that the institution of slavery did not exist in ancient Persia.
However, Queen Esther, exact date unknown but certainly decades after the overthrow of Babylon, mentions the possibility that her people might have been sold into slavery by the King instead of being massacred.
If slavery did not in the empire, how could this have been even a possibility?
To be perfectly fair, the term "slavery" covers a multitude of relationships, with enormous variability as to status, rights, etc. down through history. All Persians considered themselves "slaves of the King." Since the King had power of life and death over all his subjects, this was indeed true in a very real sense.
1. This speech was given on his resignation from the Army on December 23, 1783, well before the establishment of our present national government by the Constitution. While your statement was accurate at the time he gave the speech, its applicability to today is at the very least debatable.
2. In the Dred Scott decision of 1857, the Supreme Court announced that certain groups of people could never become citizens of the United States, regardless of their status as citizens of an individual State.
It has been referred to as his resignation address by the historians such as Paul Johnson because he used the address to provide the country with formal notification that he would not continue to serve as President beyond his second term.
Middle East ping.
68 grunt has the defintion--though not the actual spelling (before the Common Era). It is a way for non-Christians to use the same dating system while not acknowledging Christ as Christ and the Year of the Lord. (Before Christ, Anno Domini).
I have never met a Persian that I didn't like. They are a great people with a great history. What is often called the Golden Age of Islam is really the propagation of Persian culture and society through the relatively uncivilized Arab empire. The Islamic thugs who run the country today are as big a problem to the Persian people as they are to the rest of us.
Some of this author's logic seems a tad strained, but I do agree that the modern-day US is much more like the Persia of 480 BC than Sparta. I also think it's important to realize that, just as the Spartans were never, ever, EVER going to allow the Persians to change their society, and to stop them from engaging in infanticide and buggering off with their young, nor will the Islamists ever, ever, EVER let us change their society. Hence the fundamental folly at the heart of neoconservatism, which is really a sort of liberalism inasmuch as it is rooted in the poisonous thinking of (ugh) idealism.
Every empire collapses when it overextends itself. Remember that Alexander crushed Darius and the Persians just a century or so after the events of "300." If the Persians hadn't attempted to expand into Greece, who knows what would have happened. This is the equivalent of a modern-day Saladin rising in the Middle East, uniting Arabdom, and crushing the West, beginning a new Asian ascent. And 2500 years from now, our descendants will be watching a film all about the current Iraq war, with those "noble" insurgents fighting to defend Iraq from an 8-foot-tall, ambiguously gay George Bush. The insurgents lost, of course, but 'twas this war that showed America to be weak, and thus the tide turned...
The ruler of Persia was, whatever his merits, what we used to call an oriental despot. Submission to his rule was demanded of all his subjects. The Caliphs of Bagdad and then the Turkish sultans all folllowed this form of government. The western tradition of government has always been different amd in broad terms can be called the history of liberty. Liberty vs. Submission. That has been the dynamic that has characterized western history. Submission vs. rebellion has been the dynamic of the east. The difference is essentially that in the west rebellion ains toward order. So the goal is ordered liberty, whereas rebellion aims only for chaos in which the rebels enjoy the spoils of violent action, which then ends inevitably in the restoration of despotism.
My mistake. Your quote was from his farewell speecth in 1796, not his speech resigning command of the army in 1783.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.