Well, it reminds me of the history of Gajus Julius Caesar.
In fact, Rome had an army as a power to remain independent.
But the problem is, what to do with an army.
If there is peace, they have nothing to do.
That causes some political instability in a short while.
So you send them blokes to far off lands.
Where they can fight for the better of their commanding officer.
Julius Caesar stayed years in the Western European area,
and a lot of tribes were Romanized.
All for the benifit of his own political carreer.
So, if you ask me, if a country has no enemy,
them politicians allways invent one.
The muslims are the scapegoat now.
There is omly one big problem!
The Romans conquered new lands, but accepted their culture.
That's why they had succes in the long run.
The Americans are not able to do that.
That's why it will never work.
Every muslim knows the leading families in the middle east are corrupt as hell.
And that the Americans support dictators. How do Americans think to gain their sympathy?
Americans even butalize their existing allies. If I write some critical view, there is a
reply most of the time.
Western Europeans are more subtile in their language, but they have to adapt their way of discussion into shouting also when talking to Americans.
Every time you bomb a city in Iraq, more terrorists are born, in the hearts of a proud people. To them you are newbies, with big guns.
They don't care about guns. They know you can't slit all their throats.
But they can slit yours. That's your problem!
It is the same dillemma as in Vietnam.
You can't conquer a land where the population is unfriendly towards you.
To win, you would have to kill them all if they resisted.
Just like the Romans did, only if a tribe resisted!
But America is not able to kill thousands of people, because it gives bad P.R.
So why did America Invade Iraq in the first place?
