Take in the mainsails, stow the jib, we're comin' about

Ed · 13th March 2006, 04:12 AM

This article in the NYT today is stunning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/13/po...rtner=homepage

Read this and tell me if it leaves you slack jawed:

Quote:

So starting on Monday, just a few days shy of the third anniversary of Mr. Bush's order to topple Saddam Hussein, the president will begin an effort to explain his Iraq strategy anew in the changed environment of increased sectarian killings.

He acknowledged on Saturday that "many of our fellow citizens" are "now wondering if the entire mission is worth it."

But rather than simply delve into the familiar talk about the need to root out terrorists abroad so they cannot strike Americans here, the White House plans to have Mr. Bush expand his discussion of the need for the United States to embrace a new role in the world, even if that means explaining the benefits of globalization to a nation that does not appear to be in a mood to hear that message.

Does this mean that the Iraq debacle was initiated because we were trying to get a trading partner? Does it mean George wants to grab crummy little nations by the scruff of the neck and frog march them to some sort of "globalized" Utopia? WTF.

As I reported on these very pages the appetite of the US for dealing with the rest of the world is likely to diminish. It appears that GW and his buddies don't see it that way or rather don't want it that way. This boggles my mind. As far as I can see the major attributes of Globalization appear to be funding the Chinese and now the Indians for their own nefarious purposes. He thinks that we will have anything like a balance of trade with India?

One day we will elect a real conservative and we will all breathe easier. Right now, if there is much truth to the NYT article we are on a ship whose Captain can't even tie a slip-shank cow's lip. Little scarey.

Zep · 13th March 2006, 04:19 AM

I have to agree - a REAL conservative administration would at least be pragmatic about international relations, if not totally realistic.

But this lot...just watch! Once they turn about, as alluded to in the title, they will categorically deny that they were ever going the other way in the first place! It was just the world turning under them that changed...

a_unique_person · 13th March 2006, 04:28 AM

I think he's still trying to remember why it seemed such a good idea at the time.

Zep · 13th March 2006, 04:52 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

I think he's still trying to remember why it seemed such a good idea at the time.

MOBIL OIL, Mates' Rates and Money.

Bikewer · 13th March 2006, 06:54 AM

I still think that the weight is on the side of the administration buying the "neocon agenda" hook, line, and sinker.

A nice quick, easy war, followed by dancing in the street and a brief cleanup, then on to a Western-friendly democracy and a steady supply of Iraqi oil. Oh, and the rest of the Middle East would look at this shining example and fall into line as well.

Lovely picture.

Pity no one watched Lawrence of Arabia.

Mark · 13th March 2006, 06:59 AM

Originally Posted by Bikewer

I still think that the weight is on the side of the administration buying the "neocon agenda" hook, line, and sinker.

A nice quick, easy war, followed by dancing in the street and a brief cleanup, then on to a Western-friendly democracy and a steady supply of Iraqi oil. Oh, and the rest of the Middle East would look at this shining example and fall into line as well.

Lovely picture.

Pity no one watched Lawrence of Arabia.

Or paid even the slightest attention to world history in general.

Checkmite · 13th March 2006, 07:33 AM

When one intends to come about, lowering the sails is generally not recommended, as you'll lose steerageway before completing the maneuver. In fact, perhaps the quickest way to come about is to back the jib (and swing the bow smartly), since you're going to have to reverse your canvas in any case before you've reached the desired heading. Just make sure you don't slack your mainsheet, or you'll heave-to and lose steerageway anyway.

Thanz · 13th March 2006, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by Joshua Korosi

When one intends to come about, lowering the sails is generally not recommended, as you'll lose steerageway before completing the maneuver. In fact, perhaps the quickest way to come about is to back the jib (and swing the bow smartly), since you're going to have to reverse your canvas in any case before you've reached the desired heading. Just make sure you don't slack your mainsheet, or you'll heave-to and lose steerageway anyway.

Yeah.... and turn that wheel-thingy too.

The Don · 13th March 2006, 08:19 AM

Of course if the vessel is square rigged you'll need to decide whether to tack or wear if you're sailing into the wind.

In fact the more i think about it, the coalition presence in Iraq is like sailing a square rigged vessel into the wind (not least because you can't get within 6 points of the intended direction)

BPSCG · 13th March 2006, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Pity no one watched Lawrence of Arabia.

You mean the cinematic depictions of Arabs as bloodthirsty, horse-stealing, fratricidal cutthroats were accurate?

Maybe I should re-examine my aversion to getting my history from Hollywood.

BTW, when did Iraqis become Arabs?

jj · 13th March 2006, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by Ed

Does this mean that the Iraq debacle was initiated because we were trying to get a trading partner? Does it mean George wants to grab crummy little nations by the scruff of the neck and frog march them to some sort of "globalized" Utopia? WTF.

Well, Ed, I told you so. You called me a "woo" or something to that effect. You out of denial yet?

LW · 13th March 2006, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

BTW, when did Iraqis become Arabs?

Mostly during the Abbasid Caliphate (758-1258), though the progression started already during Umayyads.

Mark · 13th March 2006, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by jj

Well, Ed, I told you so. You called me a "woo" or something to that effect. You out of denial yet?

Excellent article from Paul Krugman in the NY Times in this very subject. Think those of us who saw this from the beginning will ever get an apology for being called "woo woos," "cowards," and "traitors?" Not bloody likely.

Quote:

"Welcome to the party!" he says, as the prodigal commentators return:

The Conservative Epiphany - New York Times: Bruce Bartlett, the author of "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," is an angry man. At a recent book forum at the Cato Institute, he declared that the Bush administration is "unconscionable," "irresponsible," "vindictive" and "inept." It's no wonder, then, that one commentator wrote of Mr. Bartlett that "if he were a cartoon character, he would probably look like Donald Duck during one of his famous tirades, with steam pouring out of his ears."

Oh, wait. That's not what somebody wrote about Mr. Bartlett. It's what Mr. Bartlett wrote about me in September 2003, when I was saying pretty much what he's saying now. Human nature being what it is, I don't expect Mr. Bartlett to acknowledge his about-face. Nor do I expect any expressions of remorse from Andrew Sullivan, the conservative Time.com blogger who also spoke at the Cato forum. Mr. Sullivan used to specialize in denouncing the patriotism and character of anyone who dared to criticize President Bush, whom he lionized. Now he himself has become a critic, not just of Mr. Bush's policies, but of his personal qualities, too.

Never mind; better late than never. We should welcome the recent epiphanies by conservative commentators who have finally realized that the Bush administration isn't trustworthy. But we should guard against a conventional wisdom that seems to be taking hold in some quarters, which says there's something praiseworthy about having initially been taken in by Mr. Bush's deceptions, even though the administration's mendacity was obvious from the beginning.

According to this view, if you're a former Bush supporter who now says, as Mr. Bartlett did at the Cato event, that "the administration lies about budget numbers," you're a brave truth-teller. But if you've been saying that since the early days of the Bush administration, you were unpleasantly shrill. Similarly, if you're a former worshipful admirer of George W. Bush who now says, as Mr. Sullivan did at Cato, that "the people in this administration have no principles," you're taking a courageous stand. If you said the same thing back when Mr. Bush had an 80 percent approval rating, you were blinded by Bush-hatred. And if you're a former hawk who now concedes that the administration exaggerated the threat from Iraq, you're to be applauded for your open-mindedness. But if you warned three years ago that the administration was hyping the case for war, you were a conspiracy theorist.

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/0...rugman_sa.html

Ed · 13th March 2006, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by Joshua Korosi

When one intends to come about, lowering the sails is generally not recommended, as you'll lose steerageway before completing the maneuver. In fact, perhaps the quickest way to come about is to back the jib (and swing the bow smartly), since you're going to have to reverse your canvas in any case before you've reached the desired heading. Just make sure you don't slack your mainsheet, or you'll heave-to and lose steerageway anyway.

So you agree that my thread title is appropriate given the substance of the thread? Subtlety, Joshua, subtlety.

Ed · 13th March 2006, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by jj

Well, Ed, I told you so. You called me a "woo" or something to that effect. You out of denial yet?

Sorry, Charley. My thread "Bush is a lying bastard" shortly after the
Iraq war started shows that I knew where my jib was stored ages ago.

Ed · 13th March 2006, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Mark

Excellent article from Paul Krugman in the NY Times in this very subject. Think those of us who saw this from the beginning will ever get an apology for being called "woo woos," "cowards," and "traitors?" Not bloody likely.

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/0...rugman_sa.html

Krugman wrote about me again? My blushes, Watson.

jj · 13th March 2006, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by Ed

Sorry, Charley. My thread "Bush is a lying bastard" shortly after the
Iraq war started shows that I knew where my jib was stored ages ago.

Do you recall the discussions from rather before the election, or not?

Bikewer · 13th March 2006, 04:31 PM

I think the salient point regarding Lawrence was that the region is peopled by fractious, tribalized peoples who can barely tolerate each other under the best of circumstances.
Even when they belong to the same nominal religion.

The situation reminds me of Yugoslavia as well, where ethnic tensions were kept in check for many years under the "iron heel" of Soviet domination, and which promptly broke out into open warfare when said domination was removed.

Ed · 13th March 2006, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by Bikewer

I think the salient point regarding Lawrence was that the region is peopled by fractious, tribalized peoples who can barely tolerate each other under the best of circumstances.
Even when they belong to the same nominal religion.

The situation reminds me of Yugoslavia as well, where ethnic tensions were kept in check for many years under the "iron heel" of Soviet domination, and which promptly broke out into open warfare when said domination was removed.

It actually is like this forum, now that you mention it.

Zep · 13th March 2006, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

You mean the cinematic depictions of Arabs as bloodthirsty, horse-stealing, fratricidal cutthroats were accurate?

Maybe I should re-examine my aversion to getting my history from Hollywood.

BTW, when did Iraqis become Arabs?

1) In the main, yes they were. Women were raiding booty too. Lawrence's main claim to fame was that he was able to make most of them work together against a common foe - the Turks. Although it wasn't always a peaceful alliance.

2) Please yourself. The film was mostly a British effort.

3) If I remember correctly, Prince Faisal (of the film depiction) went on to become the ruler of Iraq, at British "insistence". Again, it was to do with hegemony and oil... However that part of the world was largely Arab well before then (ah, I see a post to that effect).

ETA: Read Seven Pillars of Wisdom for a details and vainglorious account.

13th March 2006, 04:12 AM	#1
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Take in the mainsails, stow the jib, we're comin' about This article in the NYT today is stunning. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/13/po...rtner=homepage Read this and tell me if it leaves you slack jawed: Quote: So starting on Monday, just a few days shy of the third anniversary of Mr. Bush's order to topple Saddam Hussein, the president will begin an effort to explain his Iraq strategy anew in the changed environment of increased sectarian killings. He acknowledged on Saturday that "many of our fellow citizens" are "now wondering if the entire mission is worth it." But rather than simply delve into the familiar talk about the need to root out terrorists abroad so they cannot strike Americans here, the White House plans to have Mr. Bush expand his discussion of the need for the United States to embrace a new role in the world, even if that means explaining the benefits of globalization to a nation that does not appear to be in a mood to hear that message. Does this mean that the Iraq debacle was initiated because we were trying to get a trading partner? Does it mean George wants to grab crummy little nations by the scruff of the neck and frog march them to some sort of "globalized" Utopia? WTF. As I reported on these very pages the appetite of the US for dealing with the rest of the world is likely to diminish. It appears that GW and his buddies don't see it that way or rather don't want it that way. This boggles my mind. As far as I can see the major attributes of Globalization appear to be funding the Chinese and now the Indians for their own nefarious purposes. He thinks that we will have anything like a balance of trade with India? One day we will elect a real conservative and we will all breathe easier. Right now, if there is much truth to the NYT article we are on a ship whose Captain can't even tie a slip-shank cow's lip. Little scarey.
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

13th March 2006, 04:19 AM	#2
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985	I have to agree - a REAL conservative administration would at least be pragmatic about international relations, if not totally realistic. But this lot...just watch! Once they turn about, as alluded to in the title, they will categorically deny that they were ever going the other way in the first place! It was just the world turning under them that changed...
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985

13th March 2006, 04:28 AM	#3
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,317	I think he's still trying to remember why it seemed such a good idea at the time.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

13th March 2006, 04:52 AM	#4
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985	Originally Posted by a_unique_person I think he's still trying to remember why it seemed such a good idea at the time. MOBIL OIL, Mates' Rates and Money.
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985

13th March 2006, 06:59 AM	#6
Mark Former Spinal Tap Drummer Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,529	Originally Posted by Bikewer I still think that the weight is on the side of the administration buying the "neocon agenda" hook, line, and sinker. A nice quick, easy war, followed by dancing in the street and a brief cleanup, then on to a Western-friendly democracy and a steady supply of Iraqi oil. Oh, and the rest of the Middle East would look at this shining example and fall into line as well. Lovely picture. Pity no one watched Lawrence of Arabia. Or paid even the slightest attention to world history in general.
	__________________ "Give me immortality or give me death!"---The Firesign Theatre

13th March 2006, 06:54 AM	#5
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,519	I still think that the weight is on the side of the administration buying the "neocon agenda" hook, line, and sinker. A nice quick, easy war, followed by dancing in the street and a brief cleanup, then on to a Western-friendly democracy and a steady supply of Iraqi oil. Oh, and the rest of the Middle East would look at this shining example and fall into line as well. Lovely picture. Pity no one watched Lawrence of Arabia.

13th March 2006, 07:33 AM	#7
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,879	When one intends to come about, lowering the sails is generally not recommended, as you'll lose steerageway before completing the maneuver. In fact, perhaps the quickest way to come about is to back the jib (and swing the bow smartly), since you're going to have to reverse your canvas in any case before you've reached the desired heading. Just make sure you don't slack your mainsheet, or you'll heave-to and lose steerageway anyway.
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

13th March 2006, 07:39 AM	#8
Thanz Fuzzy Thinker Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centre of the Universe Posts: 3,850	Originally Posted by Joshua Korosi When one intends to come about, lowering the sails is generally not recommended, as you'll lose steerageway before completing the maneuver. In fact, perhaps the quickest way to come about is to back the jib (and swing the bow smartly), since you're going to have to reverse your canvas in any case before you've reached the desired heading. Just make sure you don't slack your mainsheet, or you'll heave-to and lose steerageway anyway. Yeah.... and turn that wheel-thingy too.
	__________________ "I am totally with Thanz on this one." -- Yahzi

13th March 2006, 08:19 AM	#9
The Don Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cymru Posts: 8,223	Of course if the vessel is square rigged you'll need to decide whether to tack or wear if you're sailing into the wind. In fact the more i think about it, the coalition presence in Iraq is like sailing a square rigged vessel into the wind (not least because you can't get within 6 points of the intended direction)

13th March 2006, 10:39 AM	#10
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by Bikewer Pity no one watched Lawrence of Arabia. You mean the cinematic depictions of Arabs as bloodthirsty, horse-stealing, fratricidal cutthroats were accurate? Maybe I should re-examine my aversion to getting my history from Hollywood. BTW, when did Iraqis become Arabs?
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

13th March 2006, 10:44 AM	#11
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,489	Originally Posted by Ed Does this mean that the Iraq debacle was initiated because we were trying to get a trading partner? Does it mean George wants to grab crummy little nations by the scruff of the neck and frog march them to some sort of "globalized" Utopia? WTF. Well, Ed, I told you so. You called me a "woo" or something to that effect. You out of denial yet?
	__________________ The Power to Quit

13th March 2006, 11:04 AM	#12
LW Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: 60°N 25°E Posts: 2,800	Originally Posted by BPSCG BTW, when did Iraqis become Arabs? Mostly during the Abbasid Caliphate (758-1258), though the progression started already during Umayyads.

13th March 2006, 11:12 AM	#13
Mark Former Spinal Tap Drummer Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,529	Originally Posted by jj Well, Ed, I told you so. You called me a "woo" or something to that effect. You out of denial yet? Excellent article from Paul Krugman in the NY Times in this very subject. Think those of us who saw this from the beginning will ever get an apology for being called "woo woos," "cowards," and "traitors?" Not bloody likely. Quote: "Welcome to the party!" he says, as the prodigal commentators return: The Conservative Epiphany - New York Times: Bruce Bartlett, the author of "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," is an angry man. At a recent book forum at the Cato Institute, he declared that the Bush administration is "unconscionable," "irresponsible," "vindictive" and "inept." It's no wonder, then, that one commentator wrote of Mr. Bartlett that "if he were a cartoon character, he would probably look like Donald Duck during one of his famous tirades, with steam pouring out of his ears." Oh, wait. That's not what somebody wrote about Mr. Bartlett. It's what Mr. Bartlett wrote about me in September 2003, when I was saying pretty much what he's saying now. Human nature being what it is, I don't expect Mr. Bartlett to acknowledge his about-face. Nor do I expect any expressions of remorse from Andrew Sullivan, the conservative Time.com blogger who also spoke at the Cato forum. Mr. Sullivan used to specialize in denouncing the patriotism and character of anyone who dared to criticize President Bush, whom he lionized. Now he himself has become a critic, not just of Mr. Bush's policies, but of his personal qualities, too. Never mind; better late than never. We should welcome the recent epiphanies by conservative commentators who have finally realized that the Bush administration isn't trustworthy. But we should guard against a conventional wisdom that seems to be taking hold in some quarters, which says there's something praiseworthy about having initially been taken in by Mr. Bush's deceptions, even though the administration's mendacity was obvious from the beginning. According to this view, if you're a former Bush supporter who now says, as Mr. Bartlett did at the Cato event, that "the administration lies about budget numbers," you're a brave truth-teller. But if you've been saying that since the early days of the Bush administration, you were unpleasantly shrill. Similarly, if you're a former worshipful admirer of George W. Bush who now says, as Mr. Sullivan did at Cato, that "the people in this administration have no principles," you're taking a courageous stand. If you said the same thing back when Mr. Bush had an 80 percent approval rating, you were blinded by Bush-hatred. And if you're a former hawk who now concedes that the administration exaggerated the threat from Iraq, you're to be applauded for your open-mindedness. But if you warned three years ago that the administration was hyping the case for war, you were a conspiracy theorist. http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/0...rugman_sa.html
	__________________ "Give me immortality or give me death!"---The Firesign Theatre

13th March 2006, 02:57 PM	#14
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Originally Posted by Joshua Korosi When one intends to come about, lowering the sails is generally not recommended, as you'll lose steerageway before completing the maneuver. In fact, perhaps the quickest way to come about is to back the jib (and swing the bow smartly), since you're going to have to reverse your canvas in any case before you've reached the desired heading. Just make sure you don't slack your mainsheet, or you'll heave-to and lose steerageway anyway. So you agree that my thread title is appropriate given the substance of the thread? Subtlety, Joshua, subtlety.
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

13th March 2006, 02:59 PM	#15
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Originally Posted by jj Well, Ed, I told you so. You called me a "woo" or something to that effect. You out of denial yet? Sorry, Charley. My thread "Bush is a lying bastard" shortly after the Iraq war started shows that I knew where my jib was stored ages ago.
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

13th March 2006, 03:01 PM	#16
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Originally Posted by Mark Excellent article from Paul Krugman in the NY Times in this very subject. Think those of us who saw this from the beginning will ever get an apology for being called "woo woos," "cowards," and "traitors?" Not bloody likely. http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/0...rugman_sa.html Krugman wrote about me again? My blushes, Watson.
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

13th March 2006, 03:06 PM	#17
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,489	Originally Posted by Ed Sorry, Charley. My thread "Bush is a lying bastard" shortly after the Iraq war started shows that I knew where my jib was stored ages ago. Do you recall the discussions from rather before the election, or not?
	__________________ The Power to Quit

13th March 2006, 04:31 PM	#18
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,519	I think the salient point regarding Lawrence was that the region is peopled by fractious, tribalized peoples who can barely tolerate each other under the best of circumstances. Even when they belong to the same nominal religion. The situation reminds me of Yugoslavia as well, where ethnic tensions were kept in check for many years under the "iron heel" of Soviet domination, and which promptly broke out into open warfare when said domination was removed.

13th March 2006, 06:19 PM	#19
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Originally Posted by Bikewer I think the salient point regarding Lawrence was that the region is peopled by fractious, tribalized peoples who can barely tolerate each other under the best of circumstances. Even when they belong to the same nominal religion. The situation reminds me of Yugoslavia as well, where ethnic tensions were kept in check for many years under the "iron heel" of Soviet domination, and which promptly broke out into open warfare when said domination was removed. It actually is like this forum, now that you mention it.
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

13th March 2006, 07:36 PM	#20
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985	Originally Posted by BPSCG You mean the cinematic depictions of Arabs as bloodthirsty, horse-stealing, fratricidal cutthroats were accurate? Maybe I should re-examine my aversion to getting my history from Hollywood. BTW, when did Iraqis become Arabs? 1) In the main, yes they were. Women were raiding booty too. Lawrence's main claim to fame was that he was able to make most of them work together against a common foe - the Turks. Although it wasn't always a peaceful alliance. 2) Please yourself. The film was mostly a British effort. 3) If I remember correctly, Prince Faisal (of the film depiction) went on to become the ruler of Iraq, at British "insistence". Again, it was to do with hegemony and oil... However that part of the world was largely Arab well before then (ah, I see a post to that effect). ETA: Read Seven Pillars of Wisdom for a details and vainglorious account.
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985