[Rhodes22-list] Reply to Frone Crawford
Herb Parsons
hparsons at parsonsys.com
Wed Jul 5 20:17:23 EDT 2006
Oh No, another lib catch phrase, whatever shall we do? (Ya think they may use it in another loosing attempt at getting their man elected?)
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
>>> bill at effros.com 7/5/2006 10:22:55 am >>>
Wally,
Thanks for the "baloney taste better" line. I've never seen it before,
but that's good, and I'll store it away for later use. I won't be able
to cite my source when I use it, but I'll always know where it came
from. Thanks, again,
Bill Effros
TN Rhodey wrote:
> 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
More information about the Rhodes22-list
mailing list