Civilization: cultures or nations?

[Ned]

That is true. But again, the reason the period from Nerva to Commodus is deemed the happy period is because the transfer of power was both peaceful and to a successor picked for merit, not to the emperor's son(s). Aurelius actually failed the empire and began its decline when he named his own son as his successor.

[Oligarf]

Knew that about the consuls, but I found the 3-year period on average very short.

Taking the following up thing to today: Absolute reigners today still have trouble with their following-up, don't think Rome was so special in that. I wonder what will happen when Saddam will die.

[Dauphin]

The USA will invade before that bridge is reached.

[lorddread]

Emperors

Originally posted by Oligarf
Knew that about the consuls, but I found the 3-year period on average very short.

Taking the following up thing to today: Absolute reigners today still have trouble with their following-up, don't think Rome was so special in that. I wonder what will happen when Saddam will die.

Emperor Length of riegn in years
Augustus 45
Tiberius 23
Caligula 4
Claudius 13
Nero 14
Galba 1
Otho 4 months
Vitellius 11 months (Unsurper)
Vespasian 10
Titus 2
Domitian 15
Nerva 2
Trajan 19
Hadrian 21
Antoninus Pius 23
Marcus Aurelius 19
Lucuis Verus 8 (Co emperor w/ Marcu Aurelius)
Commodus 12
Pertinax 3 months
Didius Julinius 3 months
Septimus Severus 18
Caracalla 6
Geta 11 months (co emperor)
Macrinus 1
Elagabalus 4
Alexander Severus 13
Max Thrax 3
Gordian I less then 28 days
Gordian II less than 28 days
Pupienus 3 months
Balbinus 3 months
Gordian III 6
Phillip Arab 5
Decius 2
Gallus 2 months
Amellianus 88 days
Valerian 7 years (died a Persian slave)
Gallienus 13
Caludius II 15
Quintillus 8 months
Aurelian 5

In the first half of the Roman empire we have 41 emperors 17 emperors who reigned less than 3 years, many of those reigning less than 1 year. Most we murdered.

My question is why anyone would have wanted the job.

[Oligarf]

Rome:
Hoping that he will survive, maybe?
And nice work, good list lorddread
Iraq:
And Europe doesn't want to take action in Iraq, so I must see it happen first before I believe it.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Oligarf
Iraq:
And Europe doesn't want to take action in Iraq, so I must see it happen first before I believe it.

When did that ever have any bearing on US unilateralism.

[lorddread]

play nice children

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin


When did that ever have any bearing on US unilateralism.

We have already been "spanked" once by the moderator. Let's not have it done again.

[Oligarf]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
When did that ever have any bearing on US unilateralism.

I guess, this time

[Dauphin]

I always play nice,

Originally posted by lorddread

We have already been "spanked" once by the moderator. Let's not have it done again.

I will desist.

[Fresno]

Iraq: I'm afraid an American invasion there would only worsen the situation in the Middle East, and it would be a disaster for the Kurdish in North Iraq. But I have to admit Saddam might be dangerous, so I don't know the answer. When operation Desert Fox started I also wasn't sure wether to support it or not. I find it hard to decide what to think of those actions, the same goes for the bombing of Yugoslavia and more recently Afghanistan. In all these situations reports about bombed hospitals and refugees worried me, though.

[lorddread]

Iraq?

Originally posted by Fresno
Iraq: I'm afraid an American invasion there would only worsen the situation in the Middle East, and it would be a disaster for the Kurdish in North Iraq. But I have to admit Saddam might be dangerous, so I don't know the answer. When operation Desert Fox started I also wasn't sure wether to support it or not. I find it hard to decide what to think of those actions, the same goes for the bombing of Yugoslavia and more recently Afghanistan. In all these situations reports about bombed hospitals and refugees worried me, though.

Let me pose some friendly questions. Before I do, a word of caution to those to get upset with these questions, "Please don't get us smacked by the forum people again."

Questions:

1. How would an invasion of Iraq worsen the plight of the Kurds? Saddam has already used Mustard, VS (worst chemical munition there is) and Sarin on them a total of 17 times, killing approx 19000 and crippling upwards of 24000.

2. What hospital has the US bombed? Is it propaganda you have heard or has the Red Cross actually pointed out a hospital? There was a firefight within a hospital in Afghanstan. That was started by 4 Taliban who snuck hand grenades in. Could this be what you are refering to?

3. Why do so many people hear a report of thousands dead and instantly believe it? It was reported in Afghanastan, Yugoslavia, and Jenin (refugee camp), but everytime Amnesty goes there and investigates, they find no slaughter. Yet people still believe the lies. Why?

[Oligarf]

Possible the truth is somewhere in between, and probably there where it belongs. Because when bullets fly around someone will get hurt, good or wrong.
And about the Kurdish, can't imagine they don't want to kick Saddam's out of his palace and do something to him which I'd better not say here.

[Fresno]

Of course the truth is in de middle. I'm not saying everything Saddam, Osama and Milosevic said is true, of course there will be much propaganda. But saying it's all lies is just too simple. Even the Nato confirmed afterwards there have been mistakes in the Kosovo war.

About the Kurds; what I meant is that when a war breaks out the first what Saddam will do is conquering the autonomous Kurdish zone in northern Iraq. And because of all his crimes against this people I'm affraid it would only harm the Kurds, not help them.

As I said, maybe an invasion is the only answer, I just find it very hard to decide what to think of it.

[Oligarf]

Kurdish: One thing is for sure, this situation ain't good for them.

And where people are, mistakes are made.

[Ned]

I presume that the US is in close contact with the Kurds and is taking their wishes into account. What I understand is that they want to be part of a coalition Iraqi government, not independent. This seems to be a significant change in objectives.

In this link, the Arabs and Turkey are said to be working on a deal to provide an independent Kurdestan.

http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/usdefense/GIU040998.html

If anyone knows about recent US-Kurd discussions, please post a link.