[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

Rome didn't have an air force, smart bombs, plasma tvs or a tradition of freedom.

Rome was the Soviet Union of that time.

[RightlySo]

As Napoleon once said, "I'll take 10 troops with the will to fight over 50 cannons". What he said has always been true-- the will to fight on the battlefield (as well as the political will back home) is far, far more important than weapons and technology.

I think the author of this article makes some valid points. Worth thinking about. We have to keep morale in the ranks high, we have to be willing to fight dirty with the terrorists, we have to be willing to suffer some deaths among us to defeat them, and we can't let the liberals hamper our political will to fight.

On a somewaht tangential note, my God, can you imagine what would happen to all the hard work we've accomplished if a Democrat is elected in 2008? Think if Hillary were POTUS. (shaking head now)

I'll sincerely pray for otherwise.

[SauronOfMordor]

Rome didn't have an air force, smart bombs, plasma tvs or a tradition of freedom.

The early Roman Republic was a model for the US in the 1700's.

What happened to the Roman Republic was the wealthy got very wealthy. They found that it was easier to import cheap foreign labor (slaves) to do the work of their farms and industry than to employ Roman citizens. The citizens increasingly relied on government benefits in order to get by, and would vote for anybody who promised them better benefits.

The Romans allowed uncontrolled immigration into their territory by the barbarians, and allowed the barbarians into their Army. When a need came to fight, the barbarians in the Roman Army had no inclination to fight against their own kinsmen, and the taxpayers of Rome had no inclination to raise the money to defeat the barbarians, figuring the problem wouldn't affect them in their own lifetimes.

The rest is history. Don't think the parallels aren't here