They say history repeats. inb4 year 2012+2. The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should he refilled, public debt should he reduced, the arrogance of shou They say history repeats inb4 year 2012+2 The budget should be balanced the Treasury he refilled public debt reduced arrogance of shou
Upload
Login or register

They say history repeats

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
 
They say history repeats. inb4 year 2012+2. The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should he refilled, public debt should he reduced, the arrogance of shou

inb4 year 2012+2

The budget should be balanced, the Treasury
should he refilled, public debt should he reduced,
the arrogance of should be tempered
and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands
should he curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt.
People must again learn to work, instead of living
on public assistance."
Cicero - BC
2067 YEARS
A' ND WE LEARNED A FUCKING THEE FROM
...
+597
Views: 28261 Submitted: 04/06/2014
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (75)
[ 75 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #3 - internetexplain
Reply +147 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
Let's do it like Rome then, become super militant and invade other countries for their resources!......wait
#4 to #3 - anon id: 79bf432f
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
there excuse back then was that every war was to defend rome... wait
User avatar #19 to #4 - loganmadder
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
Looks like we have learned something
#58 to #19 - anon id: b253599b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
we learned to wait?
User avatar #11 to #3 - whocareshue
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
Except he pointed out that Rome wasn't doing that
User avatar #28 to #3 - ooi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Would you please explain to me what resources, if any did the US gain from any conflict?

Is spilling blood or wasting money a resource?
User avatar #30 to #28 - internetexplain
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Pal , buddy , have you ever heard of the Banana wars?
User avatar #35 to #30 - ooi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
The more you know, but anything more recent it seem a bit excessive to have to go back 80 years?

Or will you be going back further to when we fought the natives for their land?

Then again I phrase my question poorly, and should have included the word recent in there.
User avatar #36 to #35 - internetexplain
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
The war against Iraq.

I'll make it short cuz im not historyexplain.

the U.S helped Saddam Hussein gain power in Iraq during the cold war , when Iran suddenly became a theocracy , Iraq invaded Iran with HUGE U.S funds.
But then Hussein decided to invade Kuweit as well , which - surprise surprise - supplied the U.S with oil , the U.S couldn't let that slide and declared war on Iraq and later got some more oil out of that war as well.
#71 to #36 - anon id: fd2df99e
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
That's hardly gaining a resource, more accurately regaining it after an enemy wrongfully stole it away.
#67 to #36 - swagbot
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
It's dangerous to go alone - take this!

youtu.be/5hfEBupAeo4

"The lie is so big that we cannot see it - it is the very backdrop to our lives."
User avatar #47 to #36 - enkmaster
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
People really need to figure out that most of America's oil is domestic. Of all the oil used by the U.S, only 30% is from the Middle East. One country isnt exactly a huge dent. Then there are huge amounts coming from Canada (and unless we get a brown dictator any time soon, I dont think the U.S will invade Alberta) and a good chunk from Brazil and a couple other South American countries. Then, barring those sources, the U.S produces a majority of its own supply by far.

Invading a country for it's oil is more expensive than it's worth, especially for a country like Murica.
#41 to #36 - anon id: f308d121
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
1. Incorrect. The US and the UK helped the Ba'athist party in a coup in 1964, but Hussein was hiding in Syria at the time, and he didn't gain political power until the people who were put in power were themselves deposed, and. didn't gain full control of the country till the late 1970's, neither of which were events that the West was involved in.

2. Iraq invaded Iran because Saddam was an overconfident idiot who wanted more oil, not because the West later provided funding for the war. On the flip side, Iran was getting wartime funding and weapons from the USSR, China, and North Korea. Classic Cold War, but unlike some of the other conflicts, the start wasn't instigated by either the East or the West, but merely supported by both sides once it started.

3. The Kuwait part is true. Iraq owed Kuwait money, and Kuwait was constantly overproducing oil.

4. The US actually got NOTHING out of Iraq. Nation-building is expensive, and in order to help that, the Iraqis kept their oil fields.
#66 to #28 - swagbot
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Okay, first, you have to define "The U.S."

We, the normal folks, got nothing (except, maybe, a continuation of the Petrodollar Scheme that is keeping our nonexistent economy afloat). We allowed ourselves to pay TRILLIONS of dollars to debt-fund random military make-work. That's the truth of it.

WATCH THIS!!! youtu.be/5hfEBupAeo4

Other groups of American Citizens, however, got their pieces of flesh from this chaos:
> The perpetrators of the war got a bunch of 'Cash' redistributed into their 'slice of the Money Supply' - both for themselves personally (massive contracts for Security, Arms, Construction, and Oil companies, among others) and for groups/agencies:
> CIA gets more free-operating territory in the U.S.-supported-and-newly-invigorated Poppy Fields of Afghanistan.
> Power-Hawks in U.S. Politics get footing for additional military bases, covert-ops in strategic areas.
> The Worldwide network of Central Banking interests have established Private Central Banks (like the illegal Federal Reserve of the U.S.) in Iraq and Afghanistan (I believe), as well as Libya (via the U.S.-instigated 'Arab Spring' faux-revolution), and now in Ukraine by the same tactics.

(Usually i provide a bunch of links for things like this, but it's so easy to Google that I i don't want to bother (and it's late tonight). Just go to InfoWars, ZeroHedge, Alt-Market, LandDestroyer or any other good Alternative-Media site and there will be info aplenty.)

It's all about Controlling as much STUFF as they can:
> Control the flow of Oil, and you control everyone's livelihoods.
> Control the Currency, and you double that control on peoples' livelihoods.
> Controlling Oil and Currency means you are essentially infinitely wealthy, allowing you to buy/sell whatever you need to in order to cement your plans for control.

The lie is so big that we cannot see it - it is the very backdrop to our lives
#62 to #28 - hazelnutqt
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Listen, homie
Nobody is sayin' you guys can't have your guns
But maybe like.. Not that many guns you know? maybe like, take away 7 guns. Sell them guns. Give the gun-food to the homeless or something

God damn, America has so much guns that I'm honestly not sure how you'd go through with a civil war you'd just gun each others like, really hard.

******* guns man
#68 to #62 - swagbot
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
> The U.S government is one of the most heavily-armed political powers in the world. (Not the Military... but also the Federal Government itself! All of the Alphabet-Soup agencies seem to be arming up lately.)
> It is constantly showing that it no longer responds to the citizens that it is supposed to reflect the will of.

You think having guns is stupid?

We 'Muricans have seen the past 100 years, which clearly shows that not having guns is the 'stupid' choice.

Guns are a good thing if in the hands of Good People. Period.
#69 to #68 - hazelnutqt
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Hey bro, you gotta calm down and like, read what I wrote
I didn't say get rid of guns
But maybe not that many guns
Like, I understand it, you like guns, you want guns
But do you really need.. THAT many guns?
(This post is entirely satirical and the guns part refers to the extravagant military seen in the US, not the privately owned gun population. Sorry for any confusion.)
#46 to #3 - anon id: e957f260
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
The fall of Rome was because they moved away from these values. It is pretty basic stuff. They started de-militarizing, gorging on foods, indulging in excess, etc and the Roman empire collapsed on itself.
#8 to #3 - capncrunchcapn
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
#57 to #3 - schnizel
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
SPQRIDF
Rome defended itself from barbarians.
#2 - trollypollyz
Reply +34 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
cicero knows all
#17 to #2 - thunderpony
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #24 to #2 - Compootor
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
The FIRST thing I thought when I saw this content was "I bet someone's posted a picture of Cicero from Skyrim in the comments. I'm surprised I had to scroll this much to find it.
User avatar #60 to #24 - OsamaBinLadenz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Well, I'd say it should be less surprising. It's the second comment, and so that means it was pretty damn quick that someone came up with it.
User avatar #59 - rapebear
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
The collapse of Rome came from prolonged wars and an early relative to the bubonic plague, not some B.S. welfare system.

Also, there were no ******* in Rome, so how could there be welfare? #realquestions
#65 to #59 - anon id: 3f273428
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
using hashtags
#70 to #59 - biscuitsunited
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
User avatar #78 to #70 - rapebear
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
'Murican public schools
#64 to #59 - ComradeBritish
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Apart from all the colored people acquired from various conquered lands in the east and Africa.
#9 - anon id: c0478424
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
It's not that history repeats, it's that people don't change. Our driving force is self-gain. That's why many of us view the majority of people (that are not our friends/family (which does not always apply)) as humangous douchnozzles. We want wealth (read "power") to make our lives better, and if we get it, we still find **** to complain about and want more of the former to rememdy that. Blah, blah, blah, cynism, pessimsm, whatever ad infinitum ad nauseum.

And yes, I am very fun at parties.
User avatar #20 to #9 - mylazy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
I feel like this =/= history does not repeat itself...in fact you just described the thing that forces history to repeat itself.
#15 to #9 - kulamia
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(04/06/2014) [-]
*History major reading your explanation*
User avatar #26 to #15 - Trrave
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
My reaction exactly! I was even looking for that picture!
#44 - alimais
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
We all know who to blame
#48 to #44 - shearerlol
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
we're on a roll
User avatar #43 - beloth
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
I hate when people make post like these. They don't seem to understand how economies and politics work. Its not always as easy as it seems.
User avatar #39 - haeckal
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Unfortunately not a real Cicero quote. Still good policy, though.
#31 - deezknuts
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Learned?

He basically just said "things should be this way" but provided ZERO means by which we could achieve such an ideal. He's no better than a tumblrist. Ideas don't mean jack **** if you can't provide a means by which you could realize them.
User avatar #49 to #31 - civilizedwasteland
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Well considering Rome as an empire lasted some 400 years after this statement there's a strong possibility he did in fact do something.
User avatar #52 to #49 - deezknuts
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Rome lasted 400 years due to various economic, military, and expansionist successes.

not because of philosophers
User avatar #53 to #52 - civilizedwasteland
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
my mistake, I thought it was the emperor cicero
#27 - gibroner
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
User avatar #56 - Crusader
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
And then he gets hanged for helping Russel Crowe escape