[Rhodes22-list] Reply to Frone Crawford

Wed Jul 5 08:35:08 EDT 2006

Herb,

Don't tell me you think we attacked for oil too? I thought everyone has been 
trying to convince me this wasn't about oil?

I will clarify.....my comment was directed towards the flying into buildings 
post. The post seemed to indicate that Iraqis flew into our buildings and as 
we know that is not true.  I should have said Iraq never launched an attack 
on our soil. I do agree that they did shoot at US Airplanes flying over 
Iraq.

I hope that makes the baloney taste better.

Wally

>From: "Herb Parsons" <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
>Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>To: <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>Subject: RE: [Rhodes22-list] Reply to Frone Crawford
>Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 13:49:45 -0500
>
>" I wouldn't call that a threat to National Security and certainly no 
>reason to attack a
>country that never attacked us."
>
>Actually, they did. Several time. They attempted to kill former President 
>Bush, which is an act of war. They also fired on our aircraft several 
>times. Nothing wrong with holding an opinion, but the "they never attacked 
>us" is pure baloney.
>
>
>Herb Parsons
>
>S/V O'Jure
>1976 O'Day 25
>Lake Grapevine, N TX
>
>S/V Reve de Papa
>1971 Coronado 35
>Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana Coast
>
> >>> tnrhodey at hotmail.com 7/4/2006 1:13:10 pm >>>
>Philip,
>
>You don't seperate oil from National Security? If we were in danger of
>running out maybe I would agree but that is not the case. There is plenty 
>of
>oil on the market and plenty more to be found.
>We have all the oil we want. We just don't like the price. I wouldn't call
>that a threat to National Security and certainly no reason to attack a
>country that never attacked us.
>
>I was all for attacking Afghanastan. We lost sight of our objective. As you
>say we didn't fly into buildings but same goes for Iraq, Maybe we should
>have attacked Saudi Arabia? Going after Bin Lidan was a good thing. I never
>heard of any intelligence indicating he was hiding in Iraq.
>
>Wally
>
> >From: "3drecon" <3drecon at comcast.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] Reply to Frone Crawford
> >Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 09:34:36 -0400
> >
> >Wally,
> >     I don't separate Oil (i.e. resources) from National Security.  We 
>need
> >one to have the other; otherwise, we are at the mercy of anyone else with
> >resources.   We did not fly into Arab buildings.  They flew into ours.  
>We
> >didn't invade Kuwait, Iraq did.  We don't blow ourselves up around women
> >and
> >children.  As a matter of fact, we willingly hamstring ourselves and cost
> >our young men and women their lives as a result to be "culturally
> >sensitive".  This baffles our friends there and delights our enemies.  To 
>a
> >certain extent, might makes right, as you put it.  History proves that.
> >Knowing when to act and how is the trick.  I agree with the strategy,
> >though
> >I may differ with the specific targets at the time.  We spent too many
> >years
> >apologising and letting the radicals have their way.  Bin Laden said he
> >based his decision to attack us on our response (or lack thereof) to
> >previous attacks.
> >
> >Philip
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
> >[mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org]On Behalf Of TN Rhodey
> >Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 7:44 AM
> >To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org
> >Subject: RE: [Rhodes22-list] Reply to Frone Crawford
> >
> >
> >Philip,
> >
> >I guess you are a proponent of the old might makes right theory? I  used
> >that theory on my little brother and it worked out real well. I always 
>got
> >the big piece of cake. I am not sure if this is the best strategy for
> >diplomatic relations. Should we not shoot for a higher standard?
> >
> >You ask what better reason then oil? We should go to war when our 
>National
> >Security is threatened.
> >
> >Wally
> >
> > >From: "3drecon" <3drecon at comcast.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: [Rhodes22-list] Reply to Frone Crawford
> > >Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:25:48 -0400
> > >
> > >Frone
> > >
> > >I didn't say I was comfortable with the Republicans, I said they are
> >closer
> > >to the Libertarian philosophy than any other "electable" party to-day.  
>I
> > >assume you allude to the Patriot Act in the "incessant drive by  the
> > >Republicans to limit personal rights and invade our private acts and
> > >thoughts" as well as the moral chest pounding.  I am opposed to the
> >Patriot
> > >Act.  I think it will be/has been abused just as the RICO act was and 
>is
> > >abused.  I don't agree with the moral grand-standing any more than I
> >agree
> > >with the liberals banning "hate" speech, becoming anti-religious and
> > >forcing
> > >the Bill of Rights on the States, contrary to the Founders intent.  I
> >also
> > >don't see a conspiricy in "a propaganda machine  leading us to
> >pre-emptive
> > >war, welfare for the agri / timber / oil companies,  selling off our
> > >resources to pay the unconscionable deficits".  The real problem with 
>oil
> > >is
> > >the restriction on drilling, exploration and refineries; simply, supply
> >and
> > >demand.  I don't know what you mean about the "agri/timber issues, but 
>if
> > >that's what it takes to make our country prosperous, then that is what 
>we
> > >should do.  A poor person never gave me a job (wealthy and corporations
> >did
> > >(and government).  I will say here that I do one of the few legitimate
> > >government tasks. . . defense (and as a civilian, declassification).  I
> > >assume by your comment about oil, you believe we "went to war for oil".
> >If
> > >so, what better reason besides retaliation?  Oil is in the national
> > >interest.  If we can secure international oil routes and supplies by
> >going
> > >to war, so what?  Liberals like to say we should go to war in Zambia, 
>or
> > >Zimbabwe or elsewhere in the African continent. If not for precious
> >metals,
> > >oil or resources, why?  If it is not in our national interest, why?  
>What
> > >the hell were we doing in Serbia?  That is a European created problem 
>and
> > >they should police it.  We have no national interest there.
> > >
> > >Philip
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
> > >[mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org]On Behalf Of
> > >FCrawford0707 at aol.com
> > >Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 10:46 AM
> > >To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org
> > >Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] To DAVE about Virginia and in reply
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >In a message dated 6/30/2006 8:47:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> > >3drecon at comcast.net writes:
> > >
> > >Frankly, I see the Democrats relying on Big Government and  growing it;
> > >however, having said that, the Republicans, in recent years have  
>changed
> > >course to
> > >appease the liberals (who will not vote for them, no matter  what) and
> >have
> > >their own brand of government growth.  I am a  Libertarian.  The
> > >Republicans
> > >are the only electable party that come  closest to that philiosophy for
> > >now,
> > >so
> > >I identify with them.  The  interesting thing is the Founding Fathers
> >would
> > >have been considered  liberals!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Philip - I am interested in your conclusion that as a Libertarian, you
> >are
> > >somehow comfortable with the Republicans.  I find the incessant drive 
>by
> > >the
> > >Republicans to limit personal rights and invade our private acts and
> > >thoughts
> > >to be at odds with my own Libertarian leanings.  The abuse of  power by
> >the
> > >present administration is frightening - a propaganda machine  leading 
>us
> >to
> > >pre-emptive war, welfare for the agri / timber / oil companies,  
>selling
> > >off
> > >our
> > >resources to pay the unconscionable deficits, not to mention the
> > >corruption
> > >and incompetence.  I am not a strict Libertarian, in that I feel  there
> >are
> > >roles best filled by government - for example, dredging and  
>maintaining
> > >the
> > >ICW.
> > >There was a great idea thirty years ago that, if  followed, would 
>perhaps
> > >have put our society in a happier and less contentious  frame than we 
>are
> > >going
> > >thru now - that of the negative income tax, in place of  all the myriad
> >of
> > >government administered support programs that don't really  serve the
> > >constituency
> > >intended, and which produce a whole lot of waste.   With a negative
> >income
> > >tax, the neediest are supported without the cost and  waste of
> >bureaucratic
> > >infrastructure.  No one makes out better financially  by not working, 
>so
> > >the
> > >"welfare syndrome" is not present.
> > >     Frone Crawford
> > >     s/v Sunday Morning
> > >__________________________________________________
> > >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
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>__________________________________________________
>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list