[Rhodes22-list] Stan, CAUTION, politics ahead

Thu May 29 15:49:00 EDT 2003

Ric,

When you think about it most of the armed conflicts we have been involved 
with had very little chance of any kind of return on investment for us. We 
did not go into Korea, Viet Nam, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, or Koslovo with 
any real chance of financial gain. So I don't think history supports your 
line of thought.

I do agree the Russians, Germans, and French had something to gain by not 
going to war.

As far as stablizing the area well we shall see how things progress. 
Hopefully this is the end result but I have my doubts.

Wally
>From: Rik Sandberg <sanderico at earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Stan, CAUTION, politics ahead
>Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 12:44:57 -0500
>
>Wally,
>
>The point of the recycling thing was (and perhaps I didn't make it very 
>well): When we go to intervene in the way another country is run, of course 
>we are going to pick on the one(s) that have the most chance of affecting 
>us financially. Yes there are many countries where there are things going 
>on that are deplorable. But, they really affect our lives in this country 
>very little and for us to go these countries and spend our time and money, 
>not to mention, most importantly, the lives of our soldiers, for 
>essentially no gain other than a warm fuzzy feeling, is hard to justify. In 
>Iraq, there was oil to cover or at least recoup some of the costs of our 
>efforts there. By stabilizing that area, all of us will probably be 
>directly affected by a hopefully more stable oil price. It makes sense to 
>me to pick on the ones that are most likely to affect us directly, first. 
>So, essentially we chose to do the thing that had the best chance of 
>supporting itself. Hence the recycling example.
>
>Why do you suppose the French, Germans and Russians were so opposed to our 
>intervening in Iraq. Follow the money again. They stood to lose (and 
>probably have now) billions of dollars of oil field work revenue. So, they 
>were apparently able to turn their heads to Saddam's attrosities for the 
>sake of financial gain. Is this somehow better than what we are doing?? I 
>think with us, at least the Iraqi people have a chance for an improvement.
>
>I never said that we or anyone else should go to war purely for financial 
>gain, and I don't believe that is what we have done here. The fact is, 
>somebody is going to make a buck out of these deals somehow. Going to war 
>creates work and people get paid for working.
>
>I don't think it's possible to find someone capable of leading this country 
>that has no ties to any area of business. There is always going to be 
>someone that perceives a conflict of interest. Unfortunately, this 
>president was in the oil business. So, does this mean that we can't do 
>anything that might be oil related until he is not the president anymore? 
>All of these men, whether liberal or conservative, have friends and know 
>people that are in business, that's how they get the money together to end 
>up where they are.
>
>I guess I feel better having a president that can't pronounce "nuclear" 
>than a real smooth talking one, who doesn't know the definition of "is", or 
>what cigars are for. And you're right, "W" doesn't speak very well. I don't 
>either. Oh well.....
>
>Rik
>
>On Thu, 29 May 2003 10:34:33 -0400, Wally Buck <tnrhodey at hotmail.com> 
>wrote:
>
>>Rik,
>>
>>I was poking fun at President Bush's mangling of the English language. If 
>>you don't think he has a problem speaking you haven't been paying 
>>attention. Due to my own carefree youth and half assed efforts in college 
>>I will not hold his C average against him. I do know he would of never 
>>gotten into Yale with out the help from being a legacy. In any case I 
>>didn't question his intelligence but it would be pretty easy to do so.
>>
>>I agree making money is not bad, never said otherwise. I do think going to 
>>war for financial gain is wrong regardless of how many jobs and paychecks 
>>are generated. Donâ€™t you? It doesnâ€™t sound like it and frankly that is 
>>quite scary. People are not focusing on the fact that some corporation is 
>>going to make money on this deal. They are focusing on the fact that our 
>>President and Vice President have ties directly or indirectly with the 
>>corporations that are going to profit. I also realize that there are not 
>>many companies in the world that can clean up the mess in the oil fields. 
>>At the same time one needs to consider how the mess got there in the first 
>>place. If Bush and Cheney had no ties to the corporations or industries 
>>there would not be near as much out cry.
>>
>>Even our leaders repeatedly disagree with you; they deny the war is about 
>>money. First it was about WMD and then it was about freeing the people. It 
>>is now obvious that our intelligence was terrible or we were deliberately 
>>misled regarding WMD. I still have hopes that our intelligence was bad and 
>>that we werenâ€™t sold a bill of goods. If one looks back on Powellâ€™s 
>>speech to the UN it is almost laughable.
>>
>>I am not sure who has the highest standard of living but by most 
>>indicators it is not the US. We are neither the wealthiest nor the 
>>smartest. We donâ€™t have the longest life expectancy, or the cleanest 
>>environment. Donâ€™t get me wrong I love our country but I am curious as 
>>to how you are measuring â€œstandard of livingâ€. If you are measuring 
>>freedoms we lead the way but we are in danger of having some of our 
>>freedoms reduced.
>>
>>I am not sure how recycling got in the mix here but I agree there is a 
>>cost to any business. When the costs exceed the profits it is not good 
>>business. There is also a cost in fouling our air, land, and water. We 
>>need to find a balance so the economy can grow while reducing the damage 
>>to our environment. Obviously a lot of work needs to be done here and we 
>>have made great strides. We just need to keep trying harder in this area.
>>
>>Wally
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: Rik Sandberg <sanderico at earthlink.net>
>>>Reply-To: sanderico at earthlink.net,The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22- 
>>>list at rhodes22.org>
>>>To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>>>Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Stan, CAUTION, politics ahead
>>>Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 08:42:17 -0500
>>>
>>>Slim, Wally, et all,
>>>
>>>I think we should be careful how we judge someone's intelligence.
>>>
>>>We watch Michael struggle with spelling even some simple words on this 
>>>board every day and I doubt that there is anyone here that would question 
>>>his intelligence. If someone would, they don't know Michael.
>>>
>>>I would also say that, money or the possibility of financial gain is what 
>>>drives most everything that happens on this planet. Always has and 
>>>probably always will. I don't see this as a bad thing. After all, when 
>>>people are able to improve their financial standing, is their standard of 
>>>living not improved??? Everyone focuses on the fact that some corporation 
>>>is going to make money on this deal. But the fact is that for that 
>>>corporation to do the work, they have to hire people and pay them. If 
>>>those people weren't working before, or this is a better job than they 
>>>had, this is a step up for them, is it not?
>>>
>>>Let's face it, we don't have the highest standard of living in the world 
>>>because we're poor and broke. Everybody here (and anywhere) who complains 
>>>about these corporations making money, goes to their job everyday and 
>>>expects to be paid for their work. Why do so many seem to have a problem 
>>>with someone making money??
>>>
>>>A good example of something good that doesn't work in our country, is 
>>>recycling. Their are a lot of products that are recyclable, but you can't 
>>>make any money on a lot of them. At the same time, it costs money to do 
>>>the work of recycling these products. How long can any of us pay the 
>>>expenses of doing something, but at the same time generate no revenue (or 
>>>less than the cost) to do this work?? We all think recycling is a good 
>>>thing and someone should be doing it, just don't send the bill to us. 
>>>When it is possible to recycle a (any) substance and turn a profit at it, 
>>>we will see it happen. Until then it just isn't going to. The point is, 
>>>if you want to see why something happens or doesn't happen, FOLLOW THE 
>>>MONEY. It will show you why.
>>>
>>>I'm not sure when it became a bad thing to be successful in this country, 
>>>but it seems many think that way, at least until they become successful 
>>>themselves.
>>>
>>>Just a thought,
>>>Rik
>>>
>>>
>>>On Thu, 29 May 2003 08:09:36 -0400, Wally Buck <tnrhodey at hotmail.com> 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Heck Slim,  there are a bunch of words he can't pronounce. I couldn't 
>>>>vote for a man whose vocabulary is worse than mine. :)
>>>>
>>>>I do agree that money drives a lot of our foreign policy. There are 
>>>>exceptions of couse but I really don't think Iraq is one of them. As our 
>>>>guys continue to take pot shots I really wonder if we can clean this 
>>>>mess up.
>>>>
>>>>When are we ever going to wake up and develop alternative fuels! I know 
>>>>"W" is all over it but why have we not been working hard on solving this 
>>>>problem.?
>>>>
>>>>It is kind of funny but Jimmy Carter couldn't pronounce "nuclear"
>>>>
>>>>Wally
>>>>
>>>>>From: Steve Alm <salm at mn.rr.com>
>>>>>Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>>>>>To: Rhodes <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>>>>>Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Stan, CAUTION, politics ahead
>>>>>Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 03:57:51 -0500
>>>>>
>>>>>Brad,
>>>>>
>>>>>Call me cynical then because it sure looks to me like the 
>>>>>money/business is
>>>>>precisely what drives our foreign policy.  It's naive to think that we
>>>>>attacked Iraq in the name of freedom, democracy, righteousness or any 
>>>>>of
>>>>>that lofty stuff.  And the whole WMD threat turned out to be nothing 
>>>>>but
>>>>>spin.  We KNOW N. Korea has WMD but what would we have to gain ($$$) by
>>>>>attacking them? BTW I find it terribly ironic that the man who controls 
>>>>>the
>>>>>vast majority of the world's WMD (Dubbya) can't even correctly 
>>>>>pronounce the
>>>>>word "nuclear."  Doesn't that make you a little squeamish?
>>>>>
>>>>>Many people are forgetting about all of that and focusing on Saddam's 
>>>>>other
>>>>>atrocities. The media vivifies that for us as they scramble for their
>>>>>ratings.  But that's not why we went after him.  There have been many
>>>>>murderous dictators just as bad.  Years ago, when we were supporting 
>>>>>Saddam
>>>>>(who was no goodytwoshoes then), Pinochet, Shaw of Iran, we turned a 
>>>>>blind
>>>>>eye as long as there was something in it for us...$$$  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.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>Slim
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Then I realized that it would be asking for the
>>>>> >> group to curtail Freedom of
>>>>> >>>> Speech.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> So, I'm left with a conundrum.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> I am personally sick and tired of the
>>>>> >> inflammatory conservative claptrap
>>>>> >>>> that shows up here.  It's isn't always the
>>>>> >> substance that irks me so much,
>>>>> >>>> but the belligerance, sarcasm and school yard
>>>>> >> bullying quality of so many of
>>>>> >>>> the posts. I have rarely seen any
>>>>> >> acknowledgement that issues can be
>>>>> >>>> multifaceted and complicated.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like all of the
>>>>> >> cannon fire comes from the
>>>>> >>>> starboard side, and I'm pretty tired of it.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Chances are that I'll have to quit the list to
>>>>> >> resolve the issue, not a
>>>>> >>>> choice I easily make.  There has been some good
>>>>> >> company here, and lot's of
>>>>> >>>> good information.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Curious to see responses, then I'll shut up and
>>>>> >> make a decision.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Bill Berner
>>>>> >>>> 191 South Broadway
>>>>> >>>> Hastings on Hudson, NY  10706
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> v 914 478 2896
>>>>> >>>> f 914 478 3856
>>>>> >>>> e BBerner at optonline.net
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> >>>> From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
>>>>> >>>> [mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org] On
>>>>> >> Behalf Of brad haslett
>>>>> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 12:37 PM
>>>>> >>>> To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org
>>>>> >>>> Subject: [Rhodes22-list] Rumsfeld Apologizes
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> May 26, 2003
>>>>> >>>> Rumsfeld Apologizes for Hyping Saddam Threat
>>>>> >>>> (2003-05-26) -- U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald
>>>>> >>>> Rumsfeld apologized to Senate Democrats today
>>>>> >> for
>>>>> >>>> pre-war "hyping" of the threat posed by Saddam
>>>>> >>>> Hussein's regime.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> "I'm sorry Senators Biden, Rockefeller, Byrd,
>>>>> >> Roberts
>>>>> >>>> and others," said a contrite Mr. Rumsfeld. "We
>>>>> >>>> overestimated the threat posed by a lunatic
>>>>> >> dictator,
>>>>> >>>> who hated the U.S. and Israel, and who paid
>>>>> >> rewards to
>>>>> >>>> families of Palestinian terrorists. In an age
>>>>> >> when two
>>>>> >>>> of the world's tallest buildings can be brought
>>>>> >> down
>>>>> >>>> with tools used by the stockboy at K-Mart, we
>>>>> >> should
>>>>> >>>> have demanded more concrete evidence of exotic
>>>>> >> weapons
>>>>> >>>> of mass destruction. Saddam was helpless as a
>>>>> >> kitten
>>>>> >>>> up a tree."
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Sen. Rockefeller, D-WV, said Congress must
>>>>> >> determine
>>>>> >>>> whether the administration "intentionally
>>>>> >>>> overestimated" Iraq's weapons program, or "just
>>>>> >>>> misread it. ... In either case it's a very bad
>>>>> >>>> outcome."
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Mr. Rumsfeld agreed, "What an awful outcome. We
>>>>> >> deeply
>>>>> >>>> regret freeing the Iraqi people from a murderous
>>>>> >> gang
>>>>> >>>> of thugs masquerading in the United Nations as a
>>>>> >>>> representative republic. We're sorry that the
>>>>> >> Iraqi
>>>>> >>>> people have discovered thousands of graves of
>>>>> >> their
>>>>> >>>> Saddam-murdered relatives. It's none of our
>>>>> >> business
>>>>> >>>> if people want to live like that."
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> __________________________________
>>>>> >>>> Do you Yahoo!?
>>>>> >>>> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
>>>>> >>>> http://search.yahoo.com
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >> __________________________________________________
>>>>> >>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
>>>>> >> www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >> __________________________________________________
>>>>> >>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
>>>>> >> www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> __________________________________________________
>>>>> >>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
>>>>> >> www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> __________________________________________________
>>>>> >> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
>>>>> > www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > __________________________________
>>>>> > Do you Yahoo!?
>>>>> > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
>>>>> > http://search.yahoo.com
>>>>> > __________________________________________________
>>>>> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>
>>>>>__________________________________________________
>>>>>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>
>>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>>MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*  
>>>>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>>>>
>>>>__________________________________________________
>>>>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
>>>__________________________________________________
>>>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
>>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>>
>>__________________________________________________
>>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
>__________________________________________________
>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus