[Rhodes22-list] Stan, CAUTION, politics ahead

[brad haslett]

Steve,

Allow me to respond point by point.

--- Steve Alm <salm at mn.rr.com> wrote:
> Brad,
> 
> Call me cynical then because it sure looks to me
> like the money/business is
> precisely what drives our foreign policy. 

...... Yes Steve, I think you're being cynical.  One
of the three major points of the "Powell Doctrine",
started under Bush 41, is that we would not engage in
any armed conflict unless US strategic interests were
at risk.  That could be political strategic interests
or financial strategic interests.  In the case of Iraq
it was some of both.....


 It's
> naive to think that we
> attacked Iraq in the name of freedom, democracy,
> righteousness or any of
> that lofty stuff. 

.....I must be naive.  Iraq was a threat to its
neighbors, peace in the region, and a known supporter
of terriorism (payments to suicide bombers in
Palistine to name just one).  If we can make Iraq a
free democracy that will be wonderful.  It will be a
tough mission but I for one think its possible.  We
did have other objectives in addition to those but how
can any of that "lofty" stuff be a bad thing?...
 

And the whole WMD threat turned
> out to be nothing but
> spin. 

.....You may not believe Bush 43 but most trust
Powell.  He couldn't reveal all his sources and
methods for evidence of WMD without putting people in
harms way.  That we haven't found any WMD YET is
frustrating but by no means proof that they didn't
exist.  Saddam had six months of UN negotiations
leading up to the war to hide them.  I personally
believe that as we capture more Iraqi officials the
truth will eventually come out.  But then again I may
be naive.....

 We KNOW N. Korea has WMD but what would we
> have to gain ($$$) by
> attacking them? 

...We have many other options with North Korea and are
presently using them.  Our ally, Japan, has far more
to fear from N. Korea than the US and China has no
interest in having nukes on the Korean pennusula.
China is co-operating with us on this issue, and, as
N. Korea's largest trading partner has much influence
over the eventual outcome.  You would'nt want us to
use arms sooner than necessary, would you?...


BTW I find it terribly ironic that
> the man who controls the
> vast majority of the world's WMD (Dubbya) can't even
> correctly pronounce the
> word "nuclear."  Doesn't that make you a little
> squeamish?

As Wally pointed out, Jimmy Carter struggled with the
word "nuclear" and he had a degree in nuclear physics.
 Jimmy also "talked funny" to some people but I for
one never questioned his intelligence.  By most
peoples assessment he was one of our smartest
Presidents.  Notice I didn't say one of the best, just
smartest.  Both Bush 41 and 43 are "speech
challenged".  As a compassionate conservative I
applaud them for achieving so much despite their
handicap and can't believe a good liberal wouldn't do
so as well.  No, I'm not squeamish.....
> 
> Many people are forgetting about all of that and
> focusing on Saddam's other
> atrocities. The media vivifies that for us as they
> scramble for their
> ratings.  But that's not why we went after him. 
> There have been many
> murderous dictators just as bad.  Years ago, when we
> were supporting Saddam
> (who was no goodytwoshoes then), Pinochet, Shaw of
> Iran, we turned a blind
> eye as long as there was something in it for
> us...$$$ 

...Yes, the media is in business primarily to sell
soap and other stuff.  That's why  I don't rely on
them as the sole source of information.  The US has
propped up foriegn governments since at least the end
of the Civil War, by administrations of both parties
with mixed results.  I know very little about
Pinochet.  The Shah of Iran I know a little about. One
of my good friends here in Memphis (and my co-pilot
last month) was the Shah of Iran's sons roommate at US
Air Force pilot training in Texas.  Its a wonderful
story about love (he married a West Texas girl),
politics, and the American Dream but that story will
have to wait for another day.  The point is, life for
Iranians under the Shah wasn't that bad.  Religious
fanatics took control of the government.  Sound
familiar?

 We've continued to
> turn a blind eye on Saddam's atrocities for years. 
> It's not like we didn't
> know he was killing people.

I posed that question to my First and Second Officer
this morning on the way back from Tampa (co-pilot and
engineer).  They are both members of the Memphis Air
National Guard and recently spent a year on active
duty supporting activities in Afghanastan.  They asked
me to remind you that we have been keeping an eye on
Saddam by enforcing the "no fly zone" for over ten
years and various other methods which they won't talk
about because you and I are civilians and don't have
security clearance.
> 
> But now it's in the best interest of the
> administration to take him down.
> Or so it thinks.  And being a Texas oil man and all,
> I think we all know
> what he's got his eye on.  And bless him for it. 
> Somebody's gotta do it.
> It's not good business to have a guy like Saddam in
> charge of all that oil.

.....Slim, I wrote a twenty-five page paper on the oil
exploration business last year with two pages of
references.  I'm no oil expert but I'll be happy to
mail you a copy and then you will know at least as
much about oil as I do.  Iraq was producing about 2/3
of its OPEC quota under the UN "Food for Oil" program.
 Much of that was smuggled out of the country and sold
on the open market.  Marc Rich was one of those
individuals who traded in Iraqi oil and was a fugitave
from US Justice until Bill Clinton pardoned him in his
last hours in office.  I agree with you that its not
good to have Saddam in charge of oil.  There is no
reason the Iraqi people can't have a good standard of
living and hopefully we can accomplish that....


> Why let a few thousand lives get in the way of that
> much business?  And
> let's face it--it really is a mother load of
> business.

...The unfortunate side effect of war is that innocent
lives get hurt.  May I please remind you that we have
three thousand of our own dead in New York City who
were non-combatants.  I had an audio file of an Iraqi
woman addressing that very question (I'll do a search,
find it, and e-mail it to you).  She said basically,
it is a tradgedy that so many people are killed but
they were already dead under Saddams rule anyway (her
words so attack her not me).  I think everyone grieves
for the loss of life, especially our own soldiers....
> 
> Several times in the last year various members on
the list have accused me, directly or by implication,
that I get my politics from bumper stickers.  If
that's true, they're damn long stickers.  I'm in
between trips and don't have access to all the
periodicals and books I've read to form the above
opinions but I'll be happy to provide them to anyone
on the list who is interested.  Flying is about 99.99%
bordom.  My monthly book and magazine bill is greater
than most folks car payments.  That doesn't make me
any smarter or my opinions any more valid.  My point
is, everything I say and believe in is based on
research.  Faulty research and naive processing
perhaps but based on something other than "feelings"
either way.

Brad
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/27/03 6:11 PM, "brad haslett"
> <flybrad at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Stan,
> > 
> > I did a Google search on Lynn Cheney and couldn't
> find
> > any construction companies she is a director of,
> but
> > of course that doesn't mean it isn't true.  She is
> on
> > the board of Lockheed-Martin, Union Pacific
> Recources
> > and Readers Digest.  Her husband, of course, was
> CEO
> > of Halliburtan and that may be the source of the
> > confusion.  Lady Bird Johnson was on the board of
> > Brown-Root Construction, who did a lot of contract
> > work in Vietnam, but I'm not aware that she
> directly
> > profited from any of their activities. Most good
> > Republican capitalists are not as smart as Ms.
> Rodham
> > and haven't figured out how to make $100,000 in a
> > month trading commodities (its called trading on
> the
> > house account, at least as old as Arkansas
> politics,
> > but those smart boys from the New York Times never
> > bothered to look too hard). As to our current
> > situation (Iraq) there are only a handfull of
> > companies with the expertise and capital to get
> the
> > oil fields up and running quickly (unless you
> count
> > the French and LukeOil, Russian, already there) so
> > there are bound to be the appearances of conflict
> of
> > interest.  One would have to be pretty cynical to
> > believe that this administration, or any other,
> would
> > start a war strictly for money.  But I know there
> are
> > folks that think that way, God bless their souls,
> > (sorry Bill) and if its true it will make some
> author
> > rich esposing it. I think those who opposed the
> war in
> > Iraq should look at the bright side;  at least
> there
> > is the oil.  What have you purchased from Somolia
> or
> > Kosovo lately?
> > 
> > Brad
> > --- General Boats <wwrhodes at rhodes22.com> wrote:
> >> Brad/Steve//Bill/ etc.
> >> 
> >> Brad:  congratulations on the sale of your boat
> and
> >> the purchase of your boat.
> >> While we do not always agree, we do agree that
> not
> >> agreeing has made this list
> >> stand out.  So I will miss your contributions and
> >> extensive knowledge, which I
> >> would like to here take advantage of.  Am I
> correct
> >> in understanding that the Vice
> >> President's wife is on the board of directors of
> the
> >> giant contractor that the VP
> >> is giving all that business to?  If so, let's
> >> collectively throw Bill a bone: Just
> >> imagine all the endless fun the right would have
> had
> >> if Mrs. Clinton had enjoyed
> >> such a rewarding conflict of interest job.
> >> 
> >> Steve:  Wonderfully profound.  I do not
> understand
> >> it.  But I am with you.
> >> 
> >> Bill: You are not supposed to abandoned a ship
> until
> >> it is sinking - we still have
> >> a few more years and need your ballast on the
> left.
> >> Hang in there and don't take
> >> it too seriously - but if you must, take solace
> that
> >> in a private, off line List
> >> poll, you are in the silent majority.
> >> 
> >> stan/gbi
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Steve Alm wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Hey Bill,
> >>> Remember that if the boat leans to the left,
> it's
> >> because you're on the
> >>> starboard tack... I have no idea what I mean by
> >> that but it sounds profound.
> >>> 8-)  8-)
> >>> 
> >>> Please feel free to post your own soap boxing.
> >> But if you use inflammatory
> >>> rhetoric such as "conservative claptrap" you're
> >> sinking to their level and
> >>> should expect more starboard cannon fire.
> >>> 
> >>> We who sit on the port rail are in the good
> >> company of most of the nation's
> >>> great thinkers who occupy most of the
> >> professorship positions at the
> >>> colleges and universities in this great country
> of
> >> ours, so take heart and
> >>> let fly!  Don't let that mean old Brad get your
> >> goat--don't get mad, get
> >>> even!  8-)
> >>> 
> >>> What the republican party needs, for example, is
> >> just ONE good poet--the
> >>> poor suckers don't have any.  The great
> Minnesota
> >> thinker, Garrison Keilor,
> >>> has volunteered.  8-)
> >>> 
> >>> Roses are red, violet are blue,
> >>> Don't quit the list, Bill,
> >>> Lots of us think like you.
> >>> 
> >>> Slim
> >>> 
> >>> On 5/27/03 2:19 PM, "Bill Berner"
> >> <bberner at optonline.net> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> I've been prompted to write by Brad's last
> >> couple of posts, especially
> >>>> "Rumsfeld apologizes"
> >>>> 
> >>>> I started in to write a suggestion that the
> list
> >> charter be modified to ask
> >>>> that members be refrain from soap boxing their
> >> political positions.
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com