moverguy wrote: Genghis Khan?
Roman Empire?
Vikings?
Yeah, they all lead and conquered and held their powers through peace and diplomacy!
Ghengis Kahn stared the largest land empire the world has ever seen. which says rather a lot for his organizational abilities. People followed him in to battle which says rather a lot for his leadership abilities. Because it was in the east to most westerners it was as if it never happened but Ghengis was far from a mindless barbarian.
Roman Empire, divide and conqueor a tactic copied by every empire. Started out as a city state fighting for freedom from tyranny.
Your legal tradition owes a great deal to roman law you live in a republic ruled by elected representratives sitting in a senate. You elect an emperor but call him president and put limits on his power, playing the various branches of government against the other is supposed balance. though most probably don't wonder why it is called a senate.
http://www.crystalinks.com/romelaw.html
The basis for Roman law was the idea that the exact form, not the intention, of words or of actions produced legal consequences. To ignore intention may not seem fair from a modern perspective, but the Romans recognized that there are witnesses to actions and words, but not to intentions.
Thus were ceated lawyers. You argue interminably about the wording of the constitution and it's meaning.
You even name cities after famous romans
Cincinnati is named after a famous Roman dictator, inspiring stuff
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/rule ... nnatus.htm
Vikings? At one point the descendants of vikings sat on every throne in europe, surprisingly eclectic in their approach to rule. our modern democracy owes a great deal to viking/celtic european tribal tradition and customs in a basic egalitarianism that is uniquely european in origin. (IMO that is )
So Bush's family had connections to the nazis-they have them now to the saudis.
None of that is a big secret. You voted for him.
Henry Ford was not only a well known anti semite (so was Walt Disney) he helped finance the early Nazi party as did not a few other industrialists. even jewish ones before they realised the mistake. Hitler started out as leading a democratic party with less than 20% of the vote and gained much support for his anti communist stance, all around the world. It was only later it became clear where it was going to lead. The Kennedy's built their financial empire with the help of the mob and prohibition. So heroes have feet of clay. Churchill was a man of his times and once he had served the way people wanted him to he got kicked out because the British people were not fighting to preserve the British Empire, that sentiment went in WW1. They wanted socialism and the welfare state not more of what things were like before.
Machiavelli was arguably trying to ingratiate himself with the prince who took over the venetian republic.
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/phil_aug2002.htm
Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) was primarily a diplomat and spin-doctor, committed to enhancing the power of his native city republic, Florence. When the Medici family ousted the republicans, Machiavelli was treated with suspicion and eventually accused of plotting against the Medici.
In 1513, Machiavelli was tortured, and retired to a farm - an internal exile. There he wrote Il Principe (The Prince) - a gift for the powerful Medici. Machiavelli hoped that his exposition on how rulers should secure power would re-ignite his political career, even if in support of the princely dictators. The Prince failed in that, but brought him posthumous fame - fame as the political philosopher best known for (seemingly) being prepared to justify any means for political preservation. He later wrote the Discourses, justifying republicanism, and The Art of War, arguing for a citizen militia rather than mercenaries.
The blame game is endless Bush was doing what everybody else was at the time.
I'd worry more about the present day military industrial complex and what they are up to than what went on in the past-although maybe a warning from history wouldn't go amiss at any time. When politicians advocate warfare as an instrument of diplomacy to preserve national interests who gets to die?
No doubt Osama Bin laden sees himself as a moral person doing his best for humanity just as bush and TB do. Then again you need a well developed sense of irony to get the humour of it all.
