Conquer Club

jimboston wrote:Are you talking about our first involvement in the early 1900's?

jimboston wrote:Are you talking about our first involvement in the early 1900's?

waauw wrote:

jimboston wrote:Are you talking about our first involvement in the early 1900's?

Yeah the west should never have helped them pump their oil out of their soil. At least then it was easy to conquer them.

waauw wrote:

jimboston wrote:Are you talking about our first involvement in the early 1900's?

Yeah the west should never have helped them pump their oil out of their soil. At least then it was easy to conquer them.

Symmetry wrote:

waauw wrote:

jimboston wrote:Are you talking about our first involvement in the early 1900's?

Yeah the west should never have helped them pump their oil out of their soil. At least then it was easy to conquer them.

Seven pillars of wisdom by T.E.Lawrence is a good read if you're interested.

jimboston wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

waauw wrote:

jimboston wrote:Are you talking about our first involvement in the early 1900's?

Yeah the west should never have helped them pump their oil out of their soil. At least then it was easy to conquer them.

Seven pillars of wisdom by T.E.Lawrence is a good read if you're interested.

Of Lawrence of Arabia fame?

I have not read it; maybe I'll add it to my "list of books to read".
The list seems to grow faster than I can read them.

jimboston wrote:Censored how? I was just looking to grab a trade paperback on ebay.

The reading list is more likely to get narrowed down if I buy the books.

Bernie Sanders wrote:

jimboston wrote:Censored how? I was just looking to grab a trade paperback on ebay.

The reading list is more likely to get narrowed down if I buy the books.

It was censored by the moral majority for a male on male sex

jimboston wrote:

Bernie Sanders wrote:

jimboston wrote:Censored how? I was just looking to grab a trade paperback on ebay.

The reading list is more likely to get narrowed down if I buy the books.

It was censored by the moral majority for a male on male sex

Evidence?

I am trying to find a Google search to support this.

I did read some earlier editions were longer; but it seems these were reduced by Lawrence himself. I'm really only doing a cursory search, but usually that's enough to find something.

jimboston wrote:Censored how? I was just looking to grab a trade paperback on ebay.

The reading list is more likely to get narrowed down if I buy the books.

Bernie Sanders wrote:

jimboston wrote:

Bernie Sanders wrote:

jimboston wrote:Censored how? I was just looking to grab a trade paperback on ebay.

The reading list is more likely to get narrowed down if I buy the books.

It was censored by the moral majority for a male on male sex

Evidence?

I am trying to find a Google search to support this.

I did read some earlier editions were longer; but it seems these were reduced by Lawrence himself. I'm really only doing a cursory search, but usually that's enough to find something.

This is censorship prior to the publishing of the book. That's what you are claiming.

That's not the same as what Symmetry is talking about.

The brutal sex attack on Lt Col T E Lawrence by Turkish soldiers, which allegedly took place while he was serving as the British liaison officer during the Arab revolt, was considered so contentious that it was covered up by the British Army.

But now, a new history of the Arab revolt is to claim that Lawrence invented the attack in order to smear political opponents and fulfill his own sado-masochistic urges.
The supposed rape on November 20, 1917, at the Syrian fortress town at Deraa has been the subject of much speculation over the years.
Although he recounted some detail of the attack in his 1922 memoir, Seven Pillars of Wisdom, the pages of Lawrence's diary covering the period when the incident is meant to have taken place, have been ripped out.

So, we know that T E Lawrence was gay, he liked the company of males. Supposedly, the British military [itself infested with man on man sex] ripped the pages from Lawrence's diary when he died.

Symmetry wrote:

jimboston wrote:Censored how? I was just looking to grab a trade paperback on ebay.

The reading list is more likely to get narrowed down if I buy the books.

Not sure, but I bought an old edition that.claimed to be the first full print. I don't know the full history of the book, but from the first few pages, it's kind of clear that it would be morally shocking for its time. Aside from that, Lawrence's stance was probably pretty much counter to the establishment regarding Arab lands post war.

Apologies for the confusion.

jimboston wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

jimboston wrote:Censored how? I was just looking to grab a trade paperback on ebay.

The reading list is more likely to get narrowed down if I buy the books.

Not sure, but I bought an old edition that.claimed to be the first full print. I don't know the full history of the book, but from the first few pages, it's kind of clear that it would be morally shocking for its time. Aside from that, Lawrence's stance was probably pretty much counter to the establishment regarding Arab lands post war.

Apologies for the confusion.

No apologies necessary.

The wiki page says that subsequent editions had fewer words/pages (if I read it correctly)... it's just unclear if it was material changes or a polishing up of the book by Lawrence himself.

The Subscribers' Edition was 25% shorter than the Oxford Text, but Lawrence did not abridge uniformly. The deletions from the early books are much less drastic than those of the later ones: for example, Book I lost 17% of its words and Book IV lost 21%, compared to 50% and 32% for Books VIII and IX. Critics differed in their opinions of the two editions: Robert Graves, E. M. Forster and George Bernard Shaw preferred the 1922 text (although, from a legal standpoint, they appreciated the removal of certain passages that could have been considered libellous, or at least indiscreet), while Edward Garnett preferred the 1926 version.

I any case a copy of a fairly recent print has already been bid on and paid for...

I liked the movie enough, willing to go deeper with the book.

thegreekdog wrote:I have a few clarifying questions for the OP:

(1) How do you define "better off?" Do you mean the governments or the upper class or the people? Do you mean economically, socially, or just be lives lost? Or all of the above?
(2) What is the beginning date for American intervention? 1941? 1945? 1990?
(3) Are you assuming no other countries are intervening?

thegreekdog wrote:I have a few clarifying questions for the OP:

(1) How do you define "better off?" Do you mean the governments or the upper class or the people? Do you mean economically, socially, or just be lives lost? Or all of the above?
(2) What is the beginning date for American intervention? 1941? 1945? 1990?
(3) Are you assuming no other countries are intervening?

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I have a few clarifying questions for the OP:

(1) How do you define "better off?" Do you mean the governments or the upper class or the people? Do you mean economically, socially, or just be lives lost? Or all of the above?
(2) What is the beginning date for American intervention? 1941? 1945? 1990?
(3) Are you assuming no other countries are intervening?

How would you answer?

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I have a few clarifying questions for the OP:

(1) How do you define "better off?" Do you mean the governments or the upper class or the people? Do you mean economically, socially, or just be lives lost? Or all of the above?
(2) What is the beginning date for American intervention? 1941? 1945? 1990?
(3) Are you assuming no other countries are intervening?

How would you answer?

If I asked the question, which I wouldn't...

(1) All of the above.
(2) 1941.
(3) Yes.