On the 18th September AD 96 another of those dreadful Roman Emperors was done in. This time it was Domitian. His father had been the great military commander Vespasian, who started work on the Colosseum. Domitian succeeded his equally good brother, Titus, but when he fell ill, he left orders to his attendants to let him starve.
Domitian was a sadist and as he grew older he lost his good looks and athletic frame. He took his brother’s daughter as a mistress and executed a man after he had taken his wife from him, because he had joked about it with Titus. His wife hatched a plot with another who also feared for his life, using other members of the Emperor’s exasperated staff.
The assassination came days after Domitian had celebrated his 15th anniversary as Emperor.
The man who would do the deed was Stephanus, the steward to  the Emperor’s niece, Domitilla. Days before he began wearing a sling, feigning an injury. On the 18th September he placed a dagger in it and at a good moment pulled it out, stabbing Domitian in the groin. The two wrestled for their lives, until four more plotters came in and stabbed the Emperor a further seven times.
He was succeeded by a 65 year old Nerva, who was elected by the Senate and who died of natural causes. He was the first of the Five Good Emperors.
Yet another reason . . .
-
I have been told about the motives for the Australians to join the “willing”:
wheat exports !Iraq under SH was a great importer of australian grains (i think about 1/3 of wheat exports went to the Iraq), so… when it came clear that the US would go in, the Aussie gov’t made a deal with the US it seems, that they would keep their exports and would not be replaced by US produced grain.
But that is just a sidenote…
-
@Guerrilla:
we also killed more children by putting sanctions on Iraq then Saddam …
Hey now, if Saddam wasn’t such an asshole, things would have been ok…
He HAD the money to put food on the table, but he’d rather not and blame it on us…
And even if Saddam grew a set and did what he should have done, twenty minutes later he’d be off killing more iraqis out of spite…
(sorry for jumping back so far)
Also we havent invaded North korea for a few reasons…
-
they have done this “WooHoo we’re making nukes give us moretrade/political rights now” thing about three times, and we caved evertime… still no nukes…
-
No country in their right mind wants to piss off China
-
They just released a major statement about how theyre currently starting the first steps to make a nuke; the trick is thats the EXACT same statement they released last year… now could they be bluffing?
-
-
we also killed more children by putting sanctions on Iraq then Saddam …
GG, dont go there.
-
Saddams “evil” led to the emplacement of economic sanctions in the first place. his slaughter of his people was one of the reasons they put sanctions on him
-
totally different things. The economic sanctions are a necessary evil, while its not a good thing per se, its necessary. i should think people against war especially would see this, as it is one of the strongest tools at their disposal short of war
-
Saddam has dozens (a lot at least, i dont know the actual number, but more than 5, and one is too many for that scumbag) of palaces, while many of his people lived in poverty. saddam, if he were any kind of “good” ruler, would spread the wealth. at least he would have the tact to not live in multiple palaces
-
-
um… Darigaaz pulled that from like a post 3 weeks ago… One problem in our society is that people jump to conclusions when something that has had “lines” drawn on it… Saddam was a terrible ruler know doubt about it… I related it to ECONOMY. Saddam did not walk around stealing everyting people had and then shooting them… He stole from selecive groups and nabbed them but not the majority “Arabs”… There was however “Starvation” occuring because people had no money… Part of that was Saddam part of that I feel was us putting oil sanctions down…
A question: If you get so inflamed at me for writing that, then why wasn’t Iraq invaded in '90? :wink: … -
Clinton
'nuff said.
-
the simple answer is, at the time, the US wanted the support of its arab allies. had we invaded Iraq to the extent we did recently, it would have disappeared. there are many more things to be considered of course, but thats the simple explanation
-
the simple answer is, at the time, the US wanted the support of its arab allies. had we invaded Iraq to the extent we did recently, it would have disappeared. there are many more things to be considered of course, but thats the simple explanation
“Arab Allies” refers to Goverments that are allied with Washington… not people… We were “Allied” with buck-making officials who didn’t want to be assasinated… just wanted to clarify 8)
-
im not going to argue with that, just say that during Desert Storm, the arab allies of the US did widely support the US. however, their ties to their arab brethren were stronger than their support of us, so even though they did support us, that would have ended if we moved against an arab brother more than they thought was necessary.
just wanted to clarify…… :wink:
-
then that is not an alliance necessarily… depends on how you take it… Stalin and Hitler had a “alliance”(this is not intended for other purposes :roll: :lol: ) I scratch your back you scratch mine… same thing with our “Arab Allies”…
-
agreed. poor choice of words. temporary allies
Suggested Topics
