They may be opaque about what they vote for, but they are very clear about what they vote against.

I don’t think we’re missing that news about those blue states. I think it’s a given.

That’s what the term “yellow dog Democrats” means.

It will take a lot more than a massacre in Syria to awaken those whose main criteria for Presidential leadership is a knowledge of sports and abortion rights. He would have to to something uncool live on TV, like insult a ball team, to really lose public support. A mere attack on the homeland could be spun in Obama’s favor as an attack by racists.

Mr. Frank Says:
October 7th, 2014 at 2:57 pm

For Turks, the Kurds getting slaughtered is a feature not a bug.

neo-neocon Says:
October 7th, 2014 at 3:02 pm

Mr. Frank:

Yes.

Yes also. And I don’t think that the image of dying Kurds, or Armenians for that matter [who seem to be by present understandings ethnically related to some degree to the Muslim and pagan Kurds], would resonate with Obama to any significant degree.

When he looks at them, they couldn’t be his sons or daughters.

What I’m seeing from them is they conclude that, although Obama has made mistakes, those mistakes are in context of Bush being ultimately to blame for everything that’s gone wrong.

The Two Stooges never cease to disgust.

There certainly WERE very large ancient armies, just not as many as the scribes have written up.

A major pre-modern fortress would never hold more than 1,000 fighters. No point defense of any node could justify a fortress of that size. (They only pencil out if you’re Tolkien.)

Some of the fortresses still survive, many in Syria. We know how tiny they are, their water capacities….

Once in a true fortress, an attacker would lose fifty men to dislodge a singe defender. The accounts of the Crusaders are astonishing, in this regard.

So even massive Muslim armies found it brutal to pry Christians out of their fortresses.

To prevail in a siege, the defender doesn’t want a large contingent. His vulnerability was water and food. So fewer defender meant more resistance.

Some of the worst defeats ever suffered occurred because of many helpless civilians inside. They should have fled from the battle zone entirely… as ancient armies were famously slow to march.

The exceptions are legendary: Hannibal, Caesar, Alexander. All were quick. It’s what made them.

%%%

What never makes sense is landing a staggering army on an island that can’t feed or water them; against a fortress that permits only a tight front. Everything makes sense if the Turks starved the Christians out. The fortress never held more than 400 souls in its garrison. (Actually a pretty big number.)

The numbers were hyped by the scribes — like Soetoro’s today — to fit the narrative. It just wouldn’t do to admit that the Turks had prevailed before the Christians (fleet) could resupply their fellow men.

As for the Turk’s anger: he must have blown up when he found out that a mere 350 Christians had held off his massive force. He’d just lost a tremendous amount of face. He was, in fact, humiliated. A brutal revenge was his recourse.

With my telling, everything fits.

His failure to honor the Western norms of war triggered the naval reprisal. Prior to that event, the Venetians just couldn’t find the motivation.

The Spanish, Genovese and the Venetians were die-hard commercial rivals. All three wanted the spice trade. It took the Pope’s entreaties and the Sultan’s jihad to unify them.

The Venetians built their latest cannon oriented ships, the six galleasses, specifically for this battle.

Promptly after this famous battle, Spain went completely over to up-sized/modified galleasses ==> galleons. Their previous Mediterranean oriented (mild seas) ship designs were abandoned. Even so, it took many generations before sailing ships had decent rough sea keeping properties.