37 Thousand Year War in Mideast
Click here to buy this book
By J. P. Ledbetter “Jim Ledbetter Sr.”
Interesting, thought provoking and filled with gile,
This review is from: The Thousand Year War in the Mideast: How It Affects You Today
With the reading of this last book in Mr. Maybury s original nine book series The Thousand Year War in the Mideast,” I have finished them all. I enjoyed them all even though the Clipper Ship was not as good as the rest. Too many funnel stories.
Yes, I have already ordered the WWI and WWII books for my further enjoyment.
I find Richard Maybury a remarkably intellectual thinker and presenter of his view of history, politics, law, various economics factors, and of course many other issues. There is however a great deal of nothing more than his personal opinion on certain issues.
Enjoy them, yes without a doubt? Did I learn from them, I believe that I leaned a great deal? Do I accept every idea or assertion that he makes, no of course not?
He may be brilliant in his presentation, form and style but to accept his assertions as gospel, because I like those qualities, would be foolish indeed. I find some of what he attempts to sell as absolute fact and the other side as he calls it, quite thought provoking; but some of it I find completely unsubstantiated by other works on the same subjects.
In his attempt to get his nephew to see the other side…he quite often seems to blindly and incorrectly “take” the other position as if it were the only possible way of looking at the issue, which is completely inappropriate and often untrue.
For instance, as a former Marine who took great pride in singing from the halls of Montezuma…to the shores of Tripoli and learning the history behind it, I take great exception to his implication that America was nothing more than a complete lackey to the English and the Europeans.
One page 205 he tells us that This will be the first case of the U.S. fighting the Europeans wars for them. I find that an odd lack of research when in the college edition of The National Experience A History of the United States by Blum, McFeeley, Morgan and Schlesinger, Jefferson s determination to stay out of entangling alliances and wars was not undone, by his mere desire or naiveté to be the puppets of the Europeans or the lackeys of some other power; but because he – actually found paying tribute – for immunity from attack to be too costly and humiliating to America. In short it was intolerable to him as President of this nation to grovel to another nation.
Click here to buy this book
This could just as easily be looked upon as a positive step to inventing the concept of international waters and the idea of free trade agreements! In any case, it resulted in an 1805 peace with the Pasha stopping his tributes and later the end of all tributes in that area in 1816, according to their account.
So I believe that Mr. Maybury, although learned and scholarly, has failed to consider all sides of the issue, the times these events were conducted in, and the necessary mentality of those dealing with the world and an emerging new nation and world player. If we would have done nothing, tribute paying would have continued, does he believe that would be a good thing? Encouraging such high seas confrontations?
Could he be implying that we just do as liberals seem to want us to do with incidents of killing, by simply ignoring attacks on our property and the loss of life and write them off? Hey, what s a few dead Americans here or there if we can secure favor with an enemy and understand him or her right? I am glad most of our presidents do not have that mentality, although the last one did, which was a real shame.
In addition as an emerging nation could Mr. Maybury really and truly believe that we should have been isolationist for the last 250 years? Democrats say yes out of one side of their mouths while saying no to any Republican who professes the same concept. It is a good word when they use it but a curse word when someone else does.
If we had been, then we would have gone the way of the Incas, Aztecs, American Indians and the French and just about every other defeated nation or people on earth. Non-involvement except for trade would be a great plan, in a world that never entered into the technological age, or that did not enter into the flying machine age or the age of rocket boosters, or the submarine age or the aircraft carrier age or the nuclear, biological and chemical age.
But that is not the world we live in. If we were still getting around with wooden ships, and balloons and horses and such, it would be fine to espouse those philosophies, but thank God we were flexible and fluid enough to adapt, adjust and become a world power broker and player in those days, and overcome the enemies who would by now be teaching our children how to speak their language by force.
I believe Mr. Maybury s opinion go astray when they do not consider the real world and how it has holistically evolved. Sometimes even bad decisions were for the best of reasons when viewed from the long view. Sure we have made mistakes in the past, but he cannot assure anyone that not making those decisions would have produced any safer a world then we have right now. And the Middle East would be a hot spot with or without our minor involvement. By his own admission it was so long before the USA came onto the scene.
Unless of course he is trying to tell us a world owned, operated and ruled by a completely Islamic regime or tyrants like the Stalin s, Hussein s, Khomeini s, Arrafat s and Hitler s and such would be better for us. If we were the wimps he suggests we should have been in world affairs back then, then that is exactly what the status quo would be today. No it is a good book, but the final solution to history as he sees it is an incorrect one, I think.
May 1st, 2010 at 5:21 am
Terrific work! This is the type of information that should be shared around the web. Shame on the search engines for not positioning this post higher!