Mga app ng Google
Pangunahing menu

Post a Comment On: Steve Sailer: iSteve

"My review of "Lawrence of Arabia""

9 Comments -

1 – 9 of 9
Anonymous manindarkhat said...

I'm inspired to see it again, but Seven Pillars of Wisdom is also a powerful work of art. Trivia: O'Toole's startlingly blue eyes are supposed to have inspired the blue eyes of the Fremen in Frank Herbert's Dune.

12/30/07, 6:03 AM

Anonymous William said...

How could you ever be satisfied with a pathetic 32" CRT[?]

Simple - move the couch closer to the set.

That story mama told you about your esesight was an old wives' tale. If it wasn't you've got more to worry about than your TV - like that monitor on your desk.

12/30/07, 8:28 AM

Anonymous Mark Seecof said...

If you purchase a DVD of Lawrence of Arabia be sure to buy the "Superbit Edition" (in the silver package). The film transfer to video has much better color and is much more clear. (The original DVD came in a nifty collectible khaki box but had a horrible transfer with screwed up color and ugly halos around things.)

12/30/07, 8:48 AM

Anonymous David Davenport said...

Now, after two easy victories in open country over Iraq's derisible regular army, America has bogged down in Iraq's urban jungles fighting countless irregular units that disappear into the alleys as Lawrence's mounted warriors vanished into the dunes...

iSteve the Democrat.

12/30/07, 12:59 PM

Anonymous Evil Neocon said...

Steve -- I think you are both right (particularly about tribalism having an "equalizer" in technology) and wrong (on the particulars).

What does NOT appear in the movie is the fabled battle of Megiddo

It was that defeat, so extraordinary and decisive, that convinced Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) that Westernization was the only real course open to Turkey (as opposed the decayed Ottoman empire).

Moreover Iraq is hardly a "defeat" in modern terms. Compared to most modern occupations or civil wars (Algeria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.) it has cost less men and money. Compared to nearly zero casualty (but ineffective) air or mostly air campaigns such as Kosovo or Desert Storm Iraq looks bad. But unlike merely bombing to kick the can down the road, Iraq settled the Saddam problem.

And is a decent victory for US forces: eventual increase in Iraqi oil production reduces Iranian, Venezuelan, and Russian leverage over world oil prices (America and it's allies win with cheap oil, lose with expensive oil). One less country as a potential nuclear proliferator (Bhutto's lies to Clinton in 96-97 that Pakistan had no intention of making nuke weapons shows the downside of trusting anyone). Bases and intel around a dangerous enemy (Iran) and leverage therefore on an enemy we don't want controlling the Gulf.

Moreover the untold story of Iraq is how quickly the US military adapted, both technologically and culturally. Splitting of tribes threatened by AQ. Playing off Sunni and Shia. Playing off those threatened by Iranian influence. Delivering as the distant patron instead of the near-threat of either Iran or Saudi. And getting a visible win where it's possible.

Afghanistan is ... essentially lost. Both Yon and other milbloggers who embedded in both Iraq and Afghanistan have said the same thing. Iraq can be supplied by the sea directly or through tiny and US dependent Kuwait. Afghanistan can ONLY be supplied through Pakistan, and Pakistan NOW can only permit so many forces transiting it's country, domestically. Look at a map. To the West Iran surrounds Afghanistan. To the South and East, Pakistan surrounds it. The rickety air-bridge through the North depends on Russia's forbearance (they control Uzbekistan) and they set strict limits on what can go through there. At any rate air alone cannot supply an army in the field. A change in the Pakistani regime could cut off US forces there and force a Chosin-reservoir fighting retreat to China in a humiliating defeat.

It's an uneasy time because technology *DOES* equalize things (you are right there Steve) but not in the manner you describe. Nuclear ICBMs or even shipping container nukes give weak, tribally oriented peoples the ability to knock out US cities (or Russian or Chinese for that matter). They won't be able to hit carrier battle groups or ICBMS or "boomers" aka ballistic missile submarines. Which they tend to forget about or ignore.

The danger is that tribal peoples don't understand the true power of industrialized countries and what happens when they go into survival mode. PC gets dumped real fast. And say 1939 Britain, which refused to bomb "private property" in the Black Forest can go to firebombing Hanover by 1943. A raiding mentality, the usual Western-PC-Multiculti groveling approach to non-Western peoples, ignorant tribalism can lead to tragic miscalculations.

In the end, Lawrence was a romantic idiot who did not see the endemic weakness of tribalism against industrialized nations, while Ataturk was a man who could at least recognize the future when he saw it with his own eyes.

At Megiddo.

12/30/07, 2:04 PM

Anonymous Proofreader said...

Evil Neocon:

Don't fail to recognize the future with your own eyes. Conventional armies are powerless in the face of guerilla warfare, or Third Generation warfare. Why can't you admit that Irak is a failure?
The USA is pulling its troops out soon and what exactly have you accomplished? Iraq is a mess and so is the rest of the ME.

12/30/07, 3:09 PM

Anonymous RKU said...

I must say that our endlessly long-winded friend "Evil Neocon" seems to lack any self-awareness.

Perhaps he should consider what will be done to him, "Evil Neocon" together with all of his friends, when America does indeed decide that it should put itself into "survival mode"...

12/30/07, 7:05 PM

Anonymous William said...

At any rate air alone cannot supply an army in the field. A change in the Pakistani regime could cut off US forces there and force a Chosin-reservoir fighting retreat to China in a humiliating defeat. - evil neocon

At which point we resupply from Iraq by overflying Iran. Any objections? Ask me if I care.

Conventional armies are powerless in the face of guerilla warfare, or Third Generation warfare. - proofreader

Conventional armies still have blunt force at their disposal which they seldom use. Bomb a city or two into submission and the rats will flee to their holes. That was the mistake made entering Iraq: prove that you're for real, and your clean-up problems are minimal. Germany and Japan didn't require too much clean-up because we'd proven what we were capable of.

12/30/07, 9:55 PM

Anonymous anony-mouse said...

If 'losers adapt' couldn't the same thing be said of US forces in Iraq? Petreaus is the Grant of the Iraq war, leading a losing army to victory by leveraging the opponents weakness against him after previous generals didn't.

If the coalition in Afghanistan stopped fighting the heroin growers and allied with them the war there could turn around too.

12/30/07, 10:10 PM

Comments are moderated, at whim.
You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
OpenID LiveJournal WordPress TypePad AOL