[Rhodes22-list] Baffle them with Bullshit
Brad Haslett
flybrad at gmail.com
Wed Jul 5 07:58:51 EDT 2006
Wally,
Actually "they" have threatened to shut off oil production several
times. The most recent example was Iran a few weeks ago. You are
correct, they need the oil money as much as we need the oil, but that
is rational thinking. Iran, for example, is not led by rational
thinking men. Depending on what economist you want to listen to, we
can withstand an average energy price increase of around 10% per year
before it starts to disrupt markets. We are on the edge of an
inflationary period as we speak, largely due to the run-up in energy
prices, and also to some extent the result of a growing economy. The
choke point for the world oil market is the Hormuz Strait. Half of
the worlds oil supply must pass this point and any disruption, even
for a few days, would send prices skyrocketing. Who benefits from
high oil prices? The same folks who have the oil. All of the US Big
Oil companies account for about 15% of total production. We have the
strategic reserve, but that will be held off the market to fuel the
military response. Try not to think about it too much. It get's very
scary.
Brad
On 7/5/06, TN Rhodey <tnrhodey at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Philip,
>
> Who has threatened to shut off oil production? They can't shut us off from
> oil, they need to sell oil to make money. Let's face it the price of oil has
> jumped and we are not in dire straits.
>
> 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] Baffle them with Bullshit
> >Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 01:54:01 -0400
> >
> >Bill,
> >
> > Your George Soros, Nancy Pelosi Talking Points are showing again. Nazi
> >Germany: I could go on for hours. Suffice it to say, it was a house of
> >cards. They never had the resources, the oil, the population, the
> >production capacity. . . not to mention the political and military
> >mis-steps. If the western response had been more firm and sure (ala
> >Churchill) Hitler wouldn't have gotten as far as he did.
> >
> > Not all resources are oil. Choke ours off and see what happens. Choke
> >off the liberal's beloved EU and see what happens. We use oil. We need
> >oil
> >and we have to keep the commerce in that region open, or should we let the
> >despots close down the mid-east oil traffic?
> >
> > We launched a few cruise missiles alright. Too little, too late under
> >Saint Clinton. Let's see what the "religion of peace" had brought us. The
> >first Twin Tower bombing. The attack on our embassy in Africa. The Khobar
> >Towers bombing. And the Cole which was under Clinton's Watch (October
> >2000). Not to mention Somalia which Bin Laden said was what convinced him
> >we would not respond to an attack on us since after Clinton expanded the
> >mission, he cut and ran after the attack on our Rangers (after Les Aspin
> >refused the commanders on the ground armored vehicles).
> >
> > I suppose you will tell me that we don't need oil as part of our
> >national security plan? What has Rome to do with it? How many 747s did
> >Rome have? Cars? Trucks? Trains? Etc. I guess we'll defend our country
> >with bronze swords and wood shields? What does Rome command to-day
> >(besides
> >Catholics)?
> >
> > When we are culturally sensative against an enemy that is neither
> >culturally sensative nor morally sensitive and it causes our soldiers to
> >die
> >when they otherwise wouldn't, I don't make the distinction.
> >
> > I think perhaps it's time for you to stop shovelling it out. And I
> >haven't once gotten a "free pass" for old time or any other sake.
> >
> >Philip
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
> >[mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org]On Behalf Of Bill Effros
> >Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 10:27 AM
> >To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> >Subject: [Rhodes22-list] Baffle them with Bullshit
> >
> >
> >Philip,
> >
> >So nice to have your political claptrap back on the list. It's so
> >scattershot, it's hard to know where to start. You like to string
> >together a bunch of non sequiteurs which you seem to believe will bring
> >any reader to your point of view. For me, it's just "If you can't
> >convince them with logic, baffle them with bullshit."
> >
> >Where to start? Where to start? History doesn't prove that might makes
> >right. Nazi Germany?
> >
> >Oil is a resource, but not all resources are oil.
> >
> >We didn't fly airplanes into Arab buildings, we flew cruise missiles
> >into Arab buildings.
> >
> >Yes, we do blow ourselves up around women and children, only we call it
> >"collateral damage".
> >
> >"We need one to have the other?" What does that mean? Ancient Rome
> >didn't have oil -- still doesn't have it, today -- but they sure had
> >National Security.
> >
> >"Culturally sensitive" has a different meaning from "morally sensitive".
> >
> >What baffles our friends and delights our enemies are people who can't
> >see the difference.
> >
> >Knowing when to act...When Clinton attacked Bin Laden, Republicans
> >started the "Wag the Dog" mantra. Who were you quoting then?
> >
> >What was Bush's response to the Cole attack?
> >
> >And just exactly when did Bin Laden say what he based his decision to
> >attack us on?
> >
> >You've gotten a free pass on a few go-rounds of this stuff for old
> >times' sake, but the days of shooting from the hip are over.
> >
> >Bill Effros
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >3drecon wrote:
> > > 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
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
More information about the Rhodes22-list
mailing list