ExiledInIllinois Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 sorry exiled, but it was a very good thing to remove (or at least markedly alter) an enemy that publicly stated its desire to bury us.( sting's "i hope the russians love their children too is replaying in my head now,thanks alot) the threat was real...we didn't need our cookies baked. Understandable and I repsect it... You are bit older than me... So you grew up during "all the hype." Yet, what I was alluding to is... We still could have used her (USSR) until a more stable fall. A bi-polar world wasn't such a bad thing... Relations were warming. See how China is today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) Libya isn't the Middle East. No one gave a **** about the Saudi Peninsula until the Brits found oil there - even to the Muslims, there was basically Mecca, Medina, and "What the !@#$ was Allah thinking when he made this shithole? !@#$ it, we're moving to Syria." Yeah, that's precisely what Venice, Genoa, etc. were thinking when their trade with the middle east allowed them to grow massively rich by being the middle men to the rest of Europe. It's the same reason America wasn't discovered, too. Which means we all don't exist. Since the middle east was so unimportant, nobody was willing to risk near certain death to find a way to get around it. Yeah, your history skills are way better than mine. sure. an obscure sea battle over pirating is analogous to regime change and nation building at a cost of 10's of thousands of lives and uncounted billions of $. maybe you could cite some ancient mesopotamian conflicts to further your argument. i recently saw some great carvings about them at the british museum. fascinating. but your point is salient. the geography is what it's all about in the 20th and 21st century. the importance of the geography has nothing to do with oil. And the importance of oil now, or silk in the 1300s, has nothing to do with geography. So what? Hell, the Eastern Roman empire grew massively rich compared to the Western, but the Western had much more territory. How did this happen, if scope and scale of commodities controlled is more important than geography? The fact is: "location, location, location" was a universal truth before humans even existed. Trying to pretend that a single commodity, and no other, is more important than geography, is either woefully naive, or purposefully ignorant. Edited February 24, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 And applying that standard to the Islamists .... Exactly how many people did the Soviets kill on US soil? how many did the iraqi's? ...now the saudis.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Yeah, that's precisely what Venice, Genoa, etc. were thinking when their trade with the middle east allowed them to grow massively rich by being the middle men to the rest of Europe. Knew you were going to say that. That would be Anatolia, Crimea, and the Levant, not the Arabian peninsula. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Irais protesting government now. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/world/middleeast/26iraq.html?_r=1&hp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Irais protesting government now. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/world/middleeast/26iraq.html?_r=1&hp The constellation of rallies, modeled after the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, brought together a chorus of anger and frustration over government corruption, instability and shoddy public services. Unlike protesters elsewhere in the region, though, the crowds in Iraq did not call for an entirely new form of government. That in itself is very interesting. Won't last, though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Knew you were going to say that. That would be Anatolia, Crimea, and the Levant, not the Arabian peninsula. Knew you were going to say that: Google "The Incense Route", and dispel your ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Knew you were going to say that: Google "The Incense Route", and dispel your ignorance. I had no idea that Venice, Genoa, etc., dominated European trade in the fourth century AD. Nice try. Next time, try not to be spectacularly wrong when you contradict me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I had no idea that Venice, Genoa, etc., dominated European trade in the fourth century AD. Nice try. Next time, try not to be spectacularly wrong when you contradict me. Wrong. Although we can go round and around about what % of stuff came via caravan through the Arabian peninsula in the middle ages, the Incense Route is undeniable. And, since you were the one who stated that nobody has ever cared about the Arabian peninsula, operative word = ever, I figure I'd hit you with something that makes you undeniably wrong. Contradicting you? How about I know, and you don't. It's hard to contradict 0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 You all remember the theory...plant a democracy in the middle of the Middle East and it will spread. Well, now we have Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Bahrain all undergoing change in a democratic direction... I know it's a revolting thought, but was W right about the inevitibility of the spread of Democracy in the Middle East? And as a semi-related comment, why hasn't this turmoil spread to Syria? You'd think of all places that would be one place that would experience this kind of thing. Not aware of a single protestor in any country saying they're doing this to "be like Iraq." So the answer is "no." Championing a phony WMD story as the basis for thousands of US deaths, and adding a trillion to the deficit is pretty hard to "vindicate" no matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Wrong. Although we can go round and around about what % of stuff came via caravan through the Arabian peninsula in the middle ages, the Incense Route is undeniable. And, since you were the one who stated that nobody has ever cared about the Arabian peninsula, operative word = ever, I figure I'd hit you with something that makes you undeniably wrong. Contradicting you? How about I know, and you don't. It's hard to contradict 0. Actually, the incense route is pretty deniable, considering that it had ceased to exist in the era you're discussing. But if you wish to consider old Roman trade routes through the Red Sea past a bunch of tribal kingdoms as "caring about the Saudi Peninsula" of a sort that stimulated the Italian Reniassance, you just go right ahead. Hell, not even the Muslims cared much about the Saudi peninsula, given that Umayyads transferred the caliphite to Damascus as soon as the possibly could. Not aware of a single protestor in any country saying they're doing this to "be like Iraq." So the answer is "no." Championing a phony WMD story as the basis for thousands of US deaths, and adding a trillion to the deficit is pretty hard to "vindicate" no matter. Record's skipping... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) Record's skipping... This Iraq war "vindicated" thread blows up your claim that no one would defend Iraq invasion to me because it was "indefensible." http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/127440-heros-unwelcome/page__view__findpost__p__2116127 Edited March 2, 2011 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 This Iraq war "vindicated" thread blows up your claim that no one would defend Iraq invasion to me because it was "indefensible." http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/127440-heros-unwelcome/page__view__findpost__p__2116127 I didn't say no one would defend it. I said you're a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) You said I'm a moron for expecting anyone to defend it. And now this pesky "vindication" thread ... DC Tom said ... "The policy of invading Iraq was indefensible. You say as much yourself. So what kind of a moron does that make you, expecting a defense of it?" Edited March 2, 2011 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 You said I'm a moron for expecting anyone to defend it. And now this pesky "vindication" thread ... DC Tom said ... "The policy of invading Iraq was indefensible. You say as much yourself. So what kind of a moron does that make you, expecting a defense of it?" It is indefensible. And you are a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 It is indefensible. And you are a moron. That's fine, I'll take that as an apology. I can tell you're not capable of anything better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 That's fine, I'll take that as an apology. I can tell you're not capable of anything better. Apology for what? The invasion of Iraq was indefensible. Period. You say so yourself. And then you pout like a petulant child because no one will discuss it with you - because, like a petulant child, you can't discuss it. Hence...you're a moron. QED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 That's fine, I'll take that as an apology. I can tell you're not capable of anything better. Are you the beer swilling cynic cum Jesus or is that the other one of you? And why can't one of you jerkoffs change your name? I have no interest in keeping track. From now on, I'm going to treat you both like the Jesus convert because the other of you has no distinct personality. So, shouldn't you be in Church? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Are you the beer swilling cynic cum Jesus or is that the other one of you? And why can't one of you jerkoffs change your name? I have no interest in keeping track. From now on, I'm going to treat you both like the Jesus convert because the other of you has no distinct personality. So, shouldn't you be in Church? Treat 'em both like morons. Works for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Are you the beer swilling cynic cum Jesus or is that the other one of you? And why can't one of you jerkoffs change your name? I have no interest in keeping track. From now on, I'm going to treat you both like the Jesus convert because the other of you has no distinct personality. So, shouldn't you be in Church? Psssssst......that's the other Joe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts