[Rhodes22-list] Reply to Frone Crawford
Herb Parsons
hparsons at parsonsys.com
Wed Jul 5 20:10:27 EDT 2006
"Don't tell me ...." is a pretty clear implication to the contrary, hardly a question.
Don't tell me you didn't know that...
>>> tnrhodey at hotmail.com 7/5/2006 10:06:28 am >>>
You didn't that is why I asked. If you had said so I wouldn't have asked.
Make sense?
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: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 08:34:16 -0500
>
>I don't believe I said anything about attacking for oil.
>
> >>> tnrhodey at hotmail.com 7/5/2006 6:35:08 am >>>
>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
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>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