Conquer Club

Was the Middle East better off before America intervened?

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Was the Middle East better off before America intervened?

Postby mrswdk on Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:28 pm

Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: Was the Middle East better off before America intervened

Postby Bernie Sanders on Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:58 pm

Now that he has the hindsight, but he wants to carpet bomb Syria and Iraq.

He goes with the political wind.

He's no different from any unhinged maniac. Give him the reins of power and he'll have our boys invading every nook and corner to save Christianity from the evil Islam faith.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Bernie Sanders
 
Posts: 5105
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 2:30 pm

Re: Was the Middle East better off before America intervened

Postby jimboston on Wed Dec 16, 2015 5:32 pm

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

Because once we dipped our toes in over there we got stuck... and we haven't been able to extricate ourselves since.

I don't think the Middle East was better off pre-WWI.
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Was the Middle East better off before America intervened

Postby mrswdk on Wed Dec 16, 2015 5:39 pm

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


I didn't realize you were that old.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: Was the Middle East better off before America intervened

Postby waauw on Wed Dec 16, 2015 7:58 pm

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.
User avatar
Lieutenant waauw
 
Posts: 4756
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:46 pm

Re: Was the Middle East better off before America intervened

Postby Symmetry on Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:57 am

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.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Was the Middle East better off before America intervened

Postby jimboston on Sat Dec 19, 2015 9:59 am

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.


It had more to do with being considered a "power" on the world stage.
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Was the Middle East better off before America intervened

Postby jimboston on Sat Dec 19, 2015 10:00 am

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. :)
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Was the Middle East better off before America intervened

Postby Symmetry on Sat Dec 19, 2015 9:43 pm

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. :)


That's the one. Some versions are censored if you pick up an old copy though.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Was the Middle East better off before America intervened

Postby jimboston on Sun Dec 20, 2015 10:44 am

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.
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Was the Middle East better off before America intervened

Postby KoolBak on Sun Dec 20, 2015 11:59 am

Are you better off before you KNOW you have stage 4 cancer?
"Gypsy told my fortune...she said that nothin showed...."

Neil Young....Like An Inca

AND:
riskllama wrote:Koolbak wins this thread.
User avatar
Private KoolBak
 
Posts: 7379
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:03 pm
Location: The beautiful Pacific Northwest

Re: Was the Middle East better off before America intervened

Postby Bernie Sanders on Sun Dec 20, 2015 12:14 pm

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
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Bernie Sanders
 
Posts: 5105
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 2:30 pm

Re: Was the Middle East better off before America intervened

Postby jimboston on Sun Dec 20, 2015 12:33 pm

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.
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Was the Middle East better off before America intervened

Postby Bernie Sanders on Sun Dec 20, 2015 4:10 pm

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.



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.

User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Bernie Sanders
 
Posts: 5105
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 2:30 pm

Re: Was the Middle East better off before America intervened

Postby Symmetry on Sun Dec 20, 2015 5:09 pm

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.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Was the Middle East better off before America intervened

Postby jimboston on Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:51 pm

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.

User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Was the Middle East better off before America intervened

Postby jimboston on Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:56 pm

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.
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Was the Middle East better off before America intervened

Postby Symmetry on Mon Dec 21, 2015 1:59 am

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.


Cool, he's definitely a complicated guy. I'm not sure I understand him, but I don't know if he understood himself.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Was the Middle East better off before America intervened

Postby thegreekdog on Mon Dec 21, 2015 9:40 am

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?
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Was the Middle East better off before America intervened

Postby jimboston on Mon Dec 21, 2015 1:31 pm

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?


Good luck getting clear answers to these valid questions.
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Was the Middle East better off before America intervened

Postby Symmetry on Mon Dec 21, 2015 2:20 pm

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?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Was the Middle East better off before America intervened

Postby thegreekdog on Mon Dec 21, 2015 2:52 pm

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.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Was the Middle East better off before America intervened

Postby notyou2 on Mon Dec 21, 2015 4:51 pm

YES.
Image
User avatar
Captain notyou2
 
Posts: 6447
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:09 am
Location: In the here and now

Re: Was the Middle East better off before America intervened

Postby Symmetry on Mon Dec 21, 2015 4:55 pm

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.


That wasn't so difficult, was it?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Next

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DirtyDishSoap, Mert34