USA going after Iran now

Deep Frayed Morgues wrote:

[...]

Didn't the phrase "towers of freedom" make you think 'perhaps this guy
is not serious?'


"Oh the 'literalness' of it all...!!"

--
Best
Greg ;--p

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:50:02 GMT, Deep Frayed Morgues wrote:

Didn't the phrase "towers of freedom" make you think 'perhaps this guy
is not serious?'

That's what smilies are for. There are so many whack-jobs around these
days that its hard to differentiate one person's sarcasm from other
peoples' crazed views of reality.

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

On 22 Nov 2004 16:39:11 GMT, BB wrote:

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:50:02 GMT, Deep Frayed Morgues wrote:

Didn't the phrase "towers of freedom" make you think 'perhaps this guy
is not serious?'

That's what smilies are for. There are so many whack-jobs around these
days that its hard to differentiate one person's sarcasm from other
peoples' crazed views of reality.

I would never reduce myself to using a smily to indicate sarcasm! That
would be like adding canned laughter.
---
DFM

Magda wrote:


Come on, they suspected that there was more land on Earth west of Europe and Africa. The
so called "way to India" was a lame justification for the trip. Isabella and Ferdinand
took the risk - "invested", so to speak.

The New World adventures were motivated primarily by religion and their wish to export
Christianity. At least, that was the gimmick used to get royal sanctions for their voyages.
Greed and exploitation were the result when the Conquistadors discovered the incredible
wealth of the Aztecs and Incas. It turned out to be surprisingly easy for a very small band
of Spaniards to make a few alliances and destroy entire empires in a very short time.

Magda wrote:


Come on, they suspected that there was more land on Earth west of Europe and Africa. The
so called "way to India" was a lame justification for the trip. Isabella and Ferdinand
took the risk - "invested", so to speak.

The New World adventures were motivated primarily by religion and their wish to export
Christianity. At least, that was the gimmick used to get royal sanctions for their voyages.
Greed and exploitation were the result when the Conquistadors discovered the incredible
wealth of the Aztecs and Incas. It turned out to be surprisingly easy for a very small band
of Spaniards to make a few alliances and destroy entire empires in a very short time.

Poldy wrote

Wasn't it to find another way to India? Because England had profitable
trade over there so they wanted to get in on the action? But Columbus
must have convinced Isabella that there would be some economic
advantage to finding an alternate route.

Dave Smith wrote:

Magda wrote:

Come on, they suspected that there was more land on Earth west of Europe and Africa. The
so called "way to India" was a lame justification for the trip. Isabella and Ferdinand
took the risk - "invested", so to speak.

The New World adventures were motivated primarily by religion and their wish to export
Christianity. At least, that was the gimmick used to get royal sanctions for their voyages.
Greed and exploitation were the result when the Conquistadors discovered the incredible
wealth of the Aztecs and Incas. It turned out to be surprisingly easy for a very small band
of Spaniards to make a few alliances and destroy entire empires in a very short time.



To reply to several of the comments. Trade with the Indies was
certainly a consideration. However it was the Venetians who had control
of the european end of the trade and they were doing quite well with it.

Suspected there was more land is far too weak. The existence of Asia
was clearly known as was the collection of valuable trade goods. If you
are thinking that there was some expectation of the existence of the
Americas other than the northern fishing banks I would like to know it.

The religious motivation was certainly there in the case of the crown
and the explorers were certainly expecting to obtain riches. Spices
were probably more expected than metals but anything was reasonable.

As to exploitation that was done as much by the Aztecs and to a certain
extent the Inca as by the Spanish. The reason for the easy conquest of
Mexico was the variety of locals who they managed to get as allies and
for whom anyone was an improvement on the Aztecs who had recently
conquered the area. Remember the Spanish ruled in the Mexico City area
longer than the Aztecs. Because of the exploitive nature of the
empires they proved to be surprisingly fragile.

The exploitation of the southern asia area was pursued at least as
seriously as that of the Americas. In both cases the Spanish, &
Portuguese were joined by the French, Dutch, and English. The only
country that was involved in the Americas and not asia was the Danes as
far as I can remember.

Poldy wrote

Wasn't it to find another way to India? Because England had profitable
trade over there so they wanted to get in on the action? But Columbus
must have convinced Isabella that there would be some economic
advantage to finding an alternate route.

Dave Smith wrote:

Magda wrote:

Come on, they suspected that there was more land on Earth west of Europe and Africa. The
so called "way to India" was a lame justification for the trip. Isabella and Ferdinand
took the risk - "invested", so to speak.

The New World adventures were motivated primarily by religion and their wish to export
Christianity. At least, that was the gimmick used to get royal sanctions for their voyages.
Greed and exploitation were the result when the Conquistadors discovered the incredible
wealth of the Aztecs and Incas. It turned out to be surprisingly easy for a very small band
of Spaniards to make a few alliances and destroy entire empires in a very short time.



To reply to several of the comments. Trade with the Indies was
certainly a consideration. However it was the Venetians who had control
of the european end of the trade and they were doing quite well with it.

Suspected there was more land is far too weak. The existence of Asia
was clearly known as was the collection of valuable trade goods. If you
are thinking that there was some expectation of the existence of the
Americas other than the northern fishing banks I would like to know it.

The religious motivation was certainly there in the case of the crown
and the explorers were certainly expecting to obtain riches. Spices
were probably more expected than metals but anything was reasonable.

As to exploitation that was done as much by the Aztecs and to a certain
extent the Inca as by the Spanish. The reason for the easy conquest of
Mexico was the variety of locals who they managed to get as allies and
for whom anyone was an improvement on the Aztecs who had recently
conquered the area. Remember the Spanish ruled in the Mexico City area
longer than the Aztecs. Because of the exploitive nature of the
empires they proved to be surprisingly fragile.

The exploitation of the southern asia area was pursued at least as
seriously as that of the Americas. In both cases the Spanish, &
Portuguese were joined by the French, Dutch, and English. The only
country that was involved in the Americas and not asia was the Danes as
far as I can remember.

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote:


The exploitation of the southern asia area was pursued at least as
seriously as that of the Americas. In both cases the Spanish, &
Portuguese were joined by the French, Dutch, and English. The only
country that was involved in the Americas and not asia was the Danes as
far as I can remember.

The Danes did have colonies in India. Serampore near Calcutta and Trankebar south of Pondicherry
were Danish colonies for almost 200 years before being handed over the the British East India
Company. They also had trade stations in Ceylon, China, Africa and Indonesia.

pmlt wrote:

Dave Smith wrote in message ...
"Frank F. Matthews" wrote:

The Danes did have colonies in India. Serampore near Calcutta and Trankebar south of Pondicherry
were Danish colonies for almost 200 years before being handed over the the British East India
Company. They also had trade stations in Ceylon, China, Africa and Indonesia.

You mean the Dutch.

No. I mean the Danes. They had colonies in India and shipping forts in a number of other eastern areas.
The Dutch colonized the east too.

Dave Smith wrote in message ...
pmlt wrote:

No. I mean the Danes. They had colonies in India and shipping forts in a number of other eastern areas.
The Dutch colonized the east too.

I didn;t know this. Having read some bits of Danish history after your
post, that is confirmed. Denmark was not a big colonial power but did
have some possessions.